IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2000/2011 [ SUNIL SURVASHI..VS.. SMT. SUNITA MALI] WRIT PETITION NO.2001/2011 [CHANDRASHEKHAR MALI..VS.. SMT. SUNITA MALI] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.G. Kavimandan, adv for petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 27, 2011. Heard Shri Kavimandan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the trial court on 15.3.2011 partly rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent to produce certain documents on record. The trial court rightly observed that there was no reason for directing the production of the documents and the petitioner did not have any concern with some of the documents of which he had sought the production. Moreover, the plaintiff would have failed, in case he would not have produced the best evidence available with him and the petitioner could not have sought a direction to the plaintiff to produce the documents on record. Since the order passed by the trial court is just and proper, the same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP