( 1 ) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. W.P.NO.5278/2008 Union of India through its Secretary. -vs- M/s. B.P. Byramji & Company and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKAR, J. DATE : 12/12/2008 Heard finally by consent of parties by making Rule returnable forthwith. By impugned order dated 01/12/2008 application at Exh.197 moved by present petitioner (defendant in Special Civil Suit No.641/2007) has been rejected after observing that it was hopelessly belated and there was no just and sufficient reason explaining the late production of those documents. Advocate Gordey with Advocate Lambat for petitioner has invited attention to application at Exh.197 to point out that the documents were discovered later on, as the ( 2 ) records are very old. He points out that earlier also documents similarly traced out were already to be produced before this Court. He further points out that Award obtained has been challenged on the ground of fraud, tampering and suppression of facts, and the documents sought to be produced are originals and from the plaintiff only. He contends, therefore, it is well within knowledge of plaintiff. Advocate Srivastava for respondent says that Award has not been challenged and he further states that documents have not been put to the plaintiff, though plaintiff has entered the witness box, after the orders of this Court dated 8th of October, 2008. He states that thereafter the evidence of the other side is also closed and final arguments are going on. He further contends that as per the orders of this Court dated 13th December, 2007, the proceedings in Special Civil Suit were already expedited and that period is expiring tomorrow. He points out that the amount now due to present respondent calculated as per the Award is roughly Rs.2.5 crores. He states that ( 3 ) the proceedings are not being conducted bonafidely and according to him, in this fashion the proceedings will never end. I have perused the earlier orders of this Court and also the impugned order. The Special Civil Suit is pending for making the Award of rule of Court. It appears that present petitioners are objecting to the said process by pointing out the fraud and some suppression. The documents sought to be produced are original. Earlier orders show that the records were not available and hence petitioners were constrained to file documents belately. In these circumstances considering the fact that the records were not available, this Court has intervened on earlier occasion. Here again I find that documents sought to be produced are alleged to be original communications issued by the office of plaintiff and as such their relevance in the back ground of defence taken by the present petitioner needs to be considered. However, it also cannot be ignored that huge amount due to the respondent as per Award is being unnecessarily withheld. ( 4 ) In these circumstances, I find that respondent can be compensated with some cots. At this stage. Advocate Srivastava urges that if this Court is inclined to interfere in the matter, at least 50% of the amount as has been awarded should be directed to be deposited. The request cannot be accepted. The petitioners are directed to pay to present respondent the amount of Rs.25,000/- as cost by depositing the same before the trial Court by 15th January, 2009. If the amount is so deposited, trial Court shall take the documents on record and shall thereafter proceed further in accordance with law. Time to decide Special Civil Suit No.641/1987, which expires on 13th December, 2008 is extended till 30th April, 2009. The learned counsel for respondents makes grievance that the present petitioners are not cooperating with the Court below in the matter of expeditious disposal. The petitioners are directed to cooperate with the Court below by keeping their Advocate present for conducting the matter or in his absence, some ( 5 ) other Advocate should be made available so that matter is not required to be adjourned on account of absent of Advocate. Impugned order dated 01/12/2008 passed below Exh.197 in Special Civil Suit No.64/1987 is quashed and set aside. Application at Exh.197 is accordingly allowed on conditions mentioned above. Rule accordingly made absolute. JUDGE gsk