1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4847 OF 2008. Dinesh Madhaoprasad Jaiswal ..vs.. Smt.Maya Ashok Chandulwar. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.S.K.Mishra,Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.M.R.Joharapurkar, Adv. for the respondent. Coram: J.H.BHATIA,J. Dated : 24th March, 2009. 1. The petitioner, who is the original plaintiff had filed Reg.Civil Suit No.2065/93 on the ground that the respondent/defendant had made some encroachment and construction near the house of the plaintiff in violation of certain easementary rights of the plaintiff. He sought a decree for removal of encroachment. The respondent took a plea that the construction made by her is on the land which is covered under the Slum Act. The issue as whether the house of the defendant comes within the slum area was treated as preliminary issue and that was decided against respondent by order dated 21/11/1997. The 2 suit was also decreed and the respondent filed Regular Civil Appeal No.2126 of 2000. That appeal is still pending. 2. In that appeal, by her application dated 26/2/2008, she sought to produce certain documents showing that she was grated permission to make repairs of the house by the Slum authority and she sought permission to produce the said document. The production of that document has been allowed under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. by the appellate court. That order is challenged in the present writ petition. 3. Even the preliminary issue as to the whether the house of the defendant comes within the slum area has been decided against her. That finding can be challenged in the appeal, which is already filed by the respondent. Naturally, the respondent was required to produce a notification under the Slum Act to show that the said house is actually covered in the Slum Area. She had also filed certain notifications before the trial court and the trial court came to the conclusion that the house of defendant is not covered in the slum area. The 3 defendant/respondent appears to have procured some order seeking repair to that house pending the appeal, may be with intention to create evidence in her favour. Anyhow, I do not think it is desirable at this stage to reject the production of the document, however, that document can be looked into only if the property is basically covered in the slum area as per the notification issued under the Slum Act and if it is not so covered, any document, which might have been procured by her, would be irrelevant for the decision of the issue. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE. Chute