1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2998 OF 2010 Rishie Nundlal ..Petitioner V/s. Deepti Nundlal ..Respondent Mr.C.K.Tripathi, Advocate, for the Petitioner None for the Respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. . The Petitioner – husband has challenged an Order passed by the Family Court, Bandra in a Petition filed by the Respondent – wife for a divorce. An application was made by the Respondent – wife for calling upon the Petitioner – husband to produce his Bank Statement, Income Tax Returns, Balance sheet/Statement of Assets and Liabilities from the year 2003 to 2008 and his Salary Slip. 2 2. By the impugned Order, the Trial Court has directed the Petitioner – husband to produce the said documents. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner had challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain the Petition. He states that the issue of jurisdiction has been decided against the Petitioner and for challenging the said Order, a separate Petition has been filed. He further states that the Petitioner is not relying on the documents which have been ordered to be produced. 4. The impugned Order is purely interlocutory in nature. The Petition filed by the Respondent – wife is for a decree of divorce. The documents ordered to be produced are certainly relevant for passing an Order under Section 24 or under Section 25 the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. There is no prejudice to the Petitioner - husband, if he produces the said documents. In any event, no interference is called for with the impugned Order which is purely interlocutory in nature. Hence, the Petition is rejected. 3 5. The presentation form shows that filing was accepted by the Scrutiny Officer on 26th March, 2010. In the case details on the High Court Website, the date of filing is shown as 29th March, 2010. This Court has found such discrepancy in several other cases. Though Scrutiny is made on 26th March, 2010, the Petition has been registered as late as on 12th March, 2010. There is gross delay in numbering the Petition. This delay defeats the system adopted by the Court of automatic listing of the Petitions. This aspect is very serious and the Registrar (Judicial-I) will immediately look into the same. Registrar (Judicial-I) will submit a report as regards the said lapse. Only for considering the report, the Petition shall be placed on 29th April, 2010 high on board. (A.S.OKA, J.)