: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.881 OF 2008 Parvatibai wd/o Mahadeo R. Raut since deceased, thru her LRs. Vikas Mahadeo Raut & Ors. .. Plaintiffs V/s. State Bank of India & Ors. .. Defendants ..... Ms. Kumud Bhatia for the plaintiffs Ms. Trupti Singhavi i/by Bhuta & Associates for defendant No.1. ..... CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13th AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : 1. Rejoinder affidavit taken on record. At the hearing of the show-cause notice, my attention was invited to an order passed by this Court on 28th January, 2008 in Chamber Summons No.1642 of 2007. The order reads thus:- The Chamber summons has been directed against defendant Nos.1 to 3 to produce the original documents mentioned in the list of documents annexed at Schedule A to the chamber summons. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed their reply stating that the documents are not in their : 2 : possession. The documents are stated to be in the possession of the first defendant. The first defendant has not appeared before the Court despite service of the chamber summons. The chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) as against defendant No.1 subject to all just exceptions in regard to relevance and admissibility. In so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants does not press the same at this stage since the plaintiff desires to take appropriate proceedings. 2. The petitioner plaintiff complaint that there is a non-compliance of this order and, therefore, this constitutes a Civil Contempt as in her submission, there is breach or violation of the order and directions of this Court. According to her, the violation is willful. 3. In my opinion, these are proceedings in a Civil Suit. During the course of the proceedings and trial, certain directions are issued with regard to production of documents. If non-production of documents which are relevant and germane to the controversy is the complaint, then, the plaintiffs in the Civil Suit are not without any remedy. If the order is not complied with, the Court will then proceed on the basis that the defendants though possessed of all the documents have not produced them. The : 3 : Court is then empowered to draw proper inferences adverse to the parties. Further, the plaintiffs can seek appropriate reliefs on the basis of the documents produced and the version set out by them. When this opportunity is available to the parties in law to prove their case, I do not see how the order dated 28th January, 2008 can be made subject matter of Civil Contempt. Show-cause notice is, therefore, discharged. Place the suit for recording of evidence after two weeks. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)