1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6137 OF 2006 Razzak Isa Kasal ...Petitioner Versus Shaikh Anal Haz Shaikh Chand ...Respondent ..... Mr. J.R. Shah, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Kazi, advocate for respondent No. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 13TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This petition takes exception to the order dated 30.6.2006 passed by the learned C.J.S.D. Nandurbar below Exh.65 in Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 1999. 2 It is not necessary to reproduce the facts, as the trial court has narrated the same in the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the application which was filed by the petitioner herein, who is original plaintiff, before the trial court praying for placing some documents on record, has been erroneously rejected. Learned counsel placed reliance on Rule 1 and 2 of Order 13 of 2 C.P.C. and has submitted that the provisions enables the plaintiff to produce documents on record before framing of issues. Learned counsel further submitted that since hearing of the suit is prolonged substantially and in the interest of justice, he may be allowed to produce documents on record. He further submitted that if it is not possible to allow the production of documents at Sr. No. 1 to 25, as mentioned in the list of documents, then at least the documents at Sr. No. 17 and 18 as public documents, may be allowed to be produced on record. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted that the order passed by the court below is well reasoned order and taking into consideration say filed by the present respondent before the trial court, the order came to be passed. Therefore, no interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I am of the considered view that the reasons given by the trial court while rejecting application are cogent and view taken is reasonable. Though learned counsel tried to contend that Rule 1 Order XIII enables the plaintiff under Sub Rule 2 to produce the documents on record, in my considered view, contention cannot be accepted. On plain reading of 3 Rule 1 of Order XIII contemplates that the copies of the documents which are submitted alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff is allowed to submit the originals of those documents before issued are framed in the suit. 5 On careful perusal of the facts narrated in the application, I do not find that the copies of documents are required to be brought on record. Therefore, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Rule 1 Order XIII and Rule 2 is wholly misplaced. Apart from this the learned Judge referred to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 17 of C.P.C. While rejecting the application. Taking over all view of the matter, I do not think that this is a case, in which this Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. Ad- interim relief, if any, stands vacated. (S.S. SHINDE, J). rlj/