1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3685 OF 2009, 1. SAU. SHYAMAL ANIL KADU, R/O. CONGRESS NAGAR, AMRAVATI. .. PETITIONER/S. VERSUS 1. VIDARBHA PRAGATI SAHAYOGI SANSTHA, VIVEKANAND COLONY, AMRAVATI. 2. HEAD MISTRESS, KANYA VIDYALAYA, VIVEKANAND COLONY, AMRAVATI. .. RESPONDENT/S. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri V.A.Kothale, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 07, 2009. 1. This petition by plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 92 of 2000 before learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati is directed against two orders passed by learned Judge at Exhs. 22 and 60 rejecting the plaintiff’s notice to produce documents as also application for direction to the defendant to produce certain documents. The documents, production whereof was sought by the petitioner, relate to recitals in paragraph 11-A of the written statement where the defendant has given details of percentage of passing of students who were taught various subjects by various teachers in the school. This written statement was filed on 27th June, 2000. On 30th June, 2000 i.e. immediately thereafter the plaintiff issued notice to produce documents, namely, statement of result of all subjects, taught by all 2 teachers from 1988 to 2000 and statement of marks obtained by each student in all subjects since 1988 till 2000. This notice was replied by the defendant by stating that the documents were not necessary and at least not necessary at the stage of interim relief. The plaintiff, then made an application for direction to the defendant to produce documents under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which also came to be rejected because it was opposed by the respondent. 2. It is not necessary to intervene at interim stage of the matter since, if the petitioner was denied an opportunity to lay hands on evidence, which was justifiably relevant, the plaintiff would be able to take up that ground in appeal. Also the learned Judge would undoubtedly see that what the plaintiff had been seeking was documents on the basis of which the pleadings in paragraph 11-A were raised by the defendant. If the defendant does not want to disclose the basis of the pleadings in paragraph 11-A of the written statement, obviously an adverse inference would have to be drawn, which the learned trial Judge would undoubtedly consider at the time of trial. 3. In view of this, no interference is called for. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with above observations. JUDGE RR.