-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1799 of 2008. IN SUIT NO. 814 OF 2005. M/s. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. ..Plaintiff. Versus M/s. M. G. Constructions & Others. ..Defendants. Mr. S. V. Doijode, Mr. K. G. Mhatre and Mr. G. C. Mehta i/b M/s. Doijode Associates for the plaintiff. Mr. Manjeet Singh – defendant no.2 party in person present. Mr. Manjeetsing Anand for defendant no.1. Mr. C. M. Lokesh i/b A. R. Bhole & Company for deft. Nos. 3 & 4. Mr. B. L.Bajoria, Company secretary and Mr. Harikesh B. Singh Asstt. Manager of plaintiff are present. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : March 9, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard defendant no.2 party in person and learned counsel for defendant no.1, learned counsel for defendant nos. 3 & 4 as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. 2. This chamber summons is taken out by defendant nos. 1 & 2 for direction to the plaintiff to give inspection of the remaining documents referred to and relied upon by the plaintiff in the plaint as per the defendants’ advocates letter dated 29th October 2005. The said letter is anexed at Exhibit-A to the chamber summons. In this letter, the defendants have referred to 59 documents. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that inspection of 58 documents is already -: 2 :- given to the defendants. He further states that the plaintiff is not relying upon the document at serial no. 43 and therefore inspection thereof is not given. 3. However, it is the contention of defendant nos. 1 & 2 that out of 59 documents, inspection of 18 documents is not given, the list of which is annexed at Exhibit-A (page-67) to the affidavit of defendant no.2 dated 25th February 2010. 4. This chamber summons was partly heard on 4th March 2010. In order to cut short the dispute, I directed the learned counsel for the plantiff to give inspection of those 18 documents to the defendants in the Court and matter was adjourned for today. Today, the plaintiff was ready with 17 documents out of 18 documents referred above. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that document at serial no.10 is not available with the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not relying upon the same. I therefore directed defendant no.2 who is appearing as party in person and learned counsel for defendant no.1 to take inspection of those 17 documents in the Court room itself. It is reported by all the parties that inspection went on from 1.00 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. 5. Inspite of the above position, defendant no.2 and learned counsel for defendant no.1 are now making grievance that photocopies of some documents are not readable and original of some of the documents are not produced. 6. As far as objection regarding the legibility of documents is -: 3 :- concerned, the defendants were shown originals of those documents, therefore this objection does not survive. So far as the objection that originals of some of the documents are not produced is concerned, the same has no merit inasmuch as the originals of those documents are not available with the plaintiff himself. It is reported by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that wherever the originals are not available photocopies have been produced for inspection. One set of photocopies of aforestated 17 documents is handed over to defendant no.2 and learned counsel for defendant no.1. 7. In the above facts and circumstances nothing survives in the chamber summons and same is accordingly disposed of. (R.V. MORE, J.)