KBP 4903-09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4903 OF 2009 Prabhakar Krishnaji Padwal ..Petitioner Vs. Smt.Kamlesh Julka wife of Shri.Kishanchand Julka and anr. ..Respondents ......... Mr.S.A.Sawant, for petitioner. Mr.S.Nagvendra i/b.M/s.Mehta & Co. for respondent No.1. ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 9 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the defendant and respondents are the original plaintiffs. 2] According to the case of the first respondent – plaintiff, the advocate for the first respondent had issued notice to the petitioner and his advocate as well as the second respondent (second defendant) and his advocate to produce certain documents. It is stated that the notice was dispatched by speed post. It is contended that the notice was received by the advocate for second respondent. The postal packet of notice sent to the second respondent came back with the remarks “intimation issued” and “not claimed”. An application was made by the first respondent for grant of permission to produce the said documents on record and he also prayed that the same be exhibited. A reply was filed by the petitioner to the said application. In the reply, the petitioner admitted that he himself and his KBP 4903-09.sxw 2 Advocate received the said letter dated 9 th January, 2009 and in fact the said letter has been replied. It was contended that it is not known whether the said letter was received by the second respondent. By the impugned order the said application has been allowed. Office copy of letter dated 9 th January, 2009 has been ordered to be exhibited. The reply sent by the petitioner has been also taken on record and the same has been exhibited. Apart from these two documents the envelope containing the letter addressed to the second respondent has been marked as an exhibit. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a Revision Application which has been summarily dismissed by the appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes. 3] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the documents have been ordered to be exhibited without giving notice to the petitioner. He submitted that the documents cannot be ordered to be read in evidence. 4] I have heard the submissions. There is no dispute that the petitioner received the letter dated 9 th January, 2009 and his advocate replied to the said letter by his letter dated 21 st February, 2009. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any objection if the said documents are taken on record and marked as exhibits. As far as the the envelope containing the letter addressed to the second defendant (second respondent herein) is concerned, the trial Court in the order has noted that only the present petitioner filed a reply to the application filed by the first respondent. The result of the impugned order is that the said envelope returned by the postal authority will be marked as an exhibit. KBP 4903-09.sxw 3 5] No fault can be found with the action of the trial court of exhibiting the said documents. Whether the letter dated 9 th January, 2009 is to be treated as served to the second defendant or not is the question which will have to be decided by the trial court on appreciation of evidence. 6] Subject to what is observed above, the Writ Petition is rejected. ( A.S.OKA, J. )