1 wp7614-11 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7614 OF 2011 Aditya Jyot Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioners and others Versus Mrs. Priti Natarajan and others ... Respondents Mr. Raj Patel a/w A. Patel and Viloma Shah i/by Hariani & Co. for the petitioners Ms. Meenaz Merchant i/by H.G. Ganatra for respondent No.1 CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 27th September, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Ms. Meenaz Merchant waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no.1. By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith as respondent no.1 is the only contesting respondent. 2. Respondent no.1 has filed a suit bearing Short Cause Suit No. 5202 of 2006 in the City Civil Court at Mumbai. The present petitioners, who are defendants nos. 1 and 2, have filed common written statement 2 wp7614-11 and common affidavit in reply is also filed. A chamber summons was taken out bearing Chamber Summons No. 401 of 2010 by the present respondent no.1-original plaintiff seeking inspection of various documents. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, by order dated 5th April, 2011, directed all the defendants, including the present petitioners, to give inspection of various documents listed in the said order. This order dated 5th April, 2011 has became the subject matter of Review Petition No. 6 of 2011. That review petition was rejected by order dated 7th July, 2011. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, this petition is filed. 3. When the matter was called out, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, upon instructions from the concerned officer of Petitioner No.1, stated that the petitioners would give inspection of all the documents which are relied upon by the petitioners in their written statement as well as in the affidavit in reply. Learned Advocate for the petitioners stated that inspection would be offered on 4th October, 2011 in the office of the advocate for the petitioners at about 5 p.m. The statement made by the learned advocate for the petitioners is accepted and noted accordingly. 3 wp7614-11 4. In my view, once the statement made by the learned advocate for the petitioners is accepted and recorded and order in that behalf, as above, is being passed, there is no question of petitioners' now giving inspection of various documents which are listed in the orders dated 5th April, 2011 because, it is a normal rule that the party can be directed to give inspection of all such documents which that party is relying upon. Apart from the said documents which are being relied upon by a party, if plaintiff or any of the parties to the suit, would like to have some other documents on record, such party will have to apply for bringing those documents on record in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, the order dated 5th April, 2011 will have to be set aside and in its place, the statement made by the learned advocate for the petitioner which is recorded above will have to be substituted. 5. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the following orders is passed to dispose of the petition. i. The impugned order dated 5th April, 2011 passed in Chamber Summons No. 401 of 2010 is set aside and it is now replaced by the following order. (a) As per the statement made by Mr. Patel, the learned advocate for the petitioners, the petitioners shall give inspection to the respondent no.1 as regards all the documents which are relied upon by the petitioners in their 4 wp7614-11 common written statement as also the documents which are relied upon by them in the common affidavit in reply. Time, place and date of inspection is already mentioned in the earlier part of this order. (b) The petitioners and the respondent No.1 are directed to take steps to carryout the job of inspection as per the statement made by Mr. Patel. ii. As the impugned order dated 5th April, 2011 is set aside, there is no need to go into the correctness of the order dated 7th July, 2011, passed in Review Petition No. 6 of 2011. The said order is consequently set aside. iii. It is clarified that this order is passed by virtue of the petition filed by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and is restricted so far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. This order will not operate for other defendants who have not challenged the said orders. Hence there is no question of this Court expressing opinion about what the other defendants should do. iv. There shall be no order as to costs. (R. Y. GANOO, J.)