1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 27, 28, 63, 79, 202 & 322 OF 2009 Mahindra & Mahindra & Others Vs. K. G. N. Pai; R. J. Norman; S. M.Pradhan thr.Asha Pradhan (L.R.); Shrikirshna R. Athwale; P. A. Shendre & Bhimrao N. Alne Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Smt Mujumdar Adv. On behalf of Shri S. S. Joshi Counsel for petitioners. Shri D. K. Dubey Counsel for respondent. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 22nd JUNE, 2009. Heard Shri Dubey learned counsel for the respondent. Petitioners counsel was heard by this Court on 15.06.2009. In fact Shri Joshi appearing for the petitioners contended before the Court 2 that he will consult the client and submit whether the petitioners want to withdraw the petitions or not. 2. Today Smt Mujumdar is present on behalf of Shri Joshi and she submits that she has been directed to make a statement before the Court that Court may pass appropriate order and petitioner does not want to withdraw the petition. 3. Since I have already heard Shri Joshi and Shri Dubey learned counsel for petitioners and respondent I proceed to pass the following order: 4. This petition has been preferred by the original defendant against the order passed by Civil Judge Junior Division on 05.01.2007 in the other civil suits. All suits are identical. All applications filed in the suits were identical and the orders that were passed by the Court were identical, hence these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order: 5. Plaintiffs had issued a notice to the present petitioners- defendants to produce certain documents. The Court passed an 3 order on the said notice directing the defendants to file documents as stated in the notice to produce documents. Defendants did not care to produce those documents on record. Subsequently the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants under Order 12 Rule 3 to admit the documents which the plaintiff had filed on record. This notice to admit was also not complied with by the defendant i.e. the defendant neither admitted the documents nor did defendant give any reply as to why defendant cannot admit those documents. Plaintiff therefore moved an application before the Court with a prayer that plaintiff may be allowed to lead secondary evidence. The learned judge has allowed the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence and defendant felt aggrieved by the same. 6. From the facts it is clear that plaintiff had initially given notice to produce original documents in possession of the defendants. Defendants did not care to produce the same inspite of the direction of the Court. Plaintiff had thereafter given a notice to admit. Defendant failed to admit these documents. It is the contention of the plaintiff that original documents are in possession of the defendants and therefore notice was given . Since the defendants did not either say before the Court that it is not in 4 possession of documents or that they are in possession of some body else the defendants were bound to produce those documents before the Court. The defendants having not so done plaintiff was justified in issuing notice to admit all documents, copies of which were filed by the plaintiff on record. Defendant did not care to reply to this notice also. In view of these facts when the defendants were in possession of the original document but did not care to produce those documents nor did state on oath that it is not in possession, the learned Judge was right in allowing to tender secondary evidence. I do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judge. There is no reason to admit the Writ Petitions. Writ Petitions are dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk 5 6 7