Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7685 of 2008 Rahul Balasao Patil ...Petitioner V/s. Smt. Akkatai Dayaram (Phukate) Patil & ors. ...Respondents Amit Borkar for the petitioner. Machindra Deshmukh for respondents 1 to 5. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 30TH JANUARY, 2009 : 30TH JANUARY, 2009 : 30TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The argument of the petitioner that the Appellate Court for the first time allowed the respondent to produce new documents and proceeded to decide the matter on that basis is devoid of merits. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said documents were taken on record without giving notice to the petitioner or opportunity to file reply in the context of the said documents. If the petitioner has failed to counter the contents of the said documents, no fault can be found with the Appellate Court in relying on the same. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner then contends that the Appellate Court has proceeded on erroneous assumption 2 that the documents pertain to relevant period. According to petitioner, the suit is filed in November, 2006 whereas documents considered by the appellate Court pertain to anterior period. This argument clearly overlooks the opinion recorded by the Appellate Court that the documents are water supply receipts for the period during 2006 and 2007 which would surely cover the relevant period. Besides, in the suit it is clearly asserted by the respondent-plaintiff that the property was purchased jointly by the respondent-plaintiff and defendant no.2. For the sake of convenience, name of defendant no.2 was mentioned in relevant records. At the sametime, the sugar-cane produced from the suit property was supplied by the respondent-plaintiff to the Co-operative sugar factory as is reinforced from the receipts dated 2nd February, 2008 which mentions the name of the plaintiff. The fact that the name of plaintiff does not appear on 7 X 12 Extract would not militate against the plaintiff at this inter-locutary stage. 4. The Appellate Court has recorded prima-facie opinion after taking into account all the relevant documents which needs no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Besides, it is noticed that the Appellate Court has made enough provision to secure the interest of the petitioner in the event the petitioner 3 was to eventually succeed. The respondent-plaintiff has already been ordered to furnish surety of double the amount and I am informed across the bar that even this direction has been complied with by the plaintiff. 5. Taking over all view of the matter, this petition fails. The same is dismissed. 6. Needless to observe that the Trial Court will have to decide suit on its own merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made by the Appellate Court or for that matter in the present order. 7. The Trial Court, if possible, may expedite the hearing of the suit to be finally disposed of by end of October, 2009. 8. Parties give assurance through Counsel that necessary co-operation may be extended to the Trial Court for early disposal of the suit. That assurance is accepted. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]