1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.149 OF 2011 EDC Limited, a Government Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at EDC House, 1st Floor, Dr. A.B. Road, Panaji-Goa, through its Dy. General Manager, Shri Arvind S. Amonkar. …. Petitioner V/s 1. M/s. Murphy Electronics Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at Sotiamol, Shiroda, Ponda, Goa and its Head Office at 58, Ranade Road, Opp. State Bank of India, Dadar (West) Mumbai-400 028. 2. M/s. VVC Electronics, a Proprietary concern of Smt. Pramodini Shirodkar, having its office at Plot No.462, Shirodkar Industries, Sotiamol, Shiroda, Ponda-Goa-403 103 and its Head Office at Anandalay, 58, Ranade Road, Dadar (west), Mumbai-400 028. …. Respondents Shri D. Pangam, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri I. Agha, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 20th OCTOBER, 2011 2 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri I. Agha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service on rule. 3. The above petition challenges the order dated 21/08/2010 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa at Panaji in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.4/2003, whereby an application filed by the petitioner to produce and rely upon the additional documents mentioned at Exhibit 78 came to be rejected. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that by the application dated 1/07/2010 the petitioner desired to rely upon additional documents in support of their claim filed under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 as specified at para 1 of the said application. It is further their case that all the aforesaid documents are in the nature of the correspondence which according 3 to them has a bearing in the dispute pending adjudication before the learned District Judge and considering that the petitioner is a statutory Corporation, the authenticity of such documents cannot be doubted. It is further their case that the said documents are very much relevant for the disposal of the matter in controversy before the learned District Judge. 5. Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, after going through the application filed by the petitioner, has pointed out that the said documents are very much relevant for the purpose of the case put forward by the petitioner and there was no justification for the learned Judge to refuse leave to the petitioner to rely upon the said documents. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the correspondence and other documents sought to be relied upon are official records maintained by the petitioner in the course of their business activity and, as such, there is no question of doubting the authenticity of the said documents. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously refused leave to the petitioner and according to the learned Counsel great prejudice will occasion to the petitioner in case the said 4 documents are not allowed to be produced and/or relied upon by the petitioner. The learned Counsel, as such, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Shri I. Agha has vehemently argued opposing the above petition on the ground that the said documents sought to be relied upon are not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the matter. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the said documents are fabricated documents and they are being manufactured by the petitioner to advance their frivolous case sought to be made out in the proceedings before the learned District Judge. Learned Counsel further pointed out that since the documents are fabricated the question of granting any relief to the petitioner to rely upon such documents would not arise at all. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is no nexus between the matter in controversy before the learned Court and the documents sought to be introduced by the petitioner. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is no case made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Judge. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the application is also hit by latches and delay. 5 7. Dealing with the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that this Court should not interfere in the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it cannot be disputed that normally such jurisdiction is not exercised by the Court unless and until irreparable loss and failure of justice is pointed out by the aggrieved parties who challenge the order passed by the Courts below. In the present case, on perusal of the impugned order, the learned Judge has essentially rejected the application on the ground that the said documents are not relevant nor have any nexus between the matter in controversy. The primary duty of the Court while deciding the application for leave to produce the documents includes to ascertain as to whether, prima facie, the authenticity of such documents is in doubt and/or whether material is on record to come to the conclusion that such documents are fabricated. On perusal of the documents sought to be relied on the same appear to be official records maintained by the petitioner and correspondence in the course of their business activity. No doubt the respondents are always entitled to dispute the authenticity and existence of such documents. At the time of the production of such documents the respondents will have an 6 ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness on the said documents and raise any objection if they are so advised in law at the time of producing the documents on record. At this stage, the only aspect to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled for leave to rely upon the said documents. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner to the effect that the documents sought to be introduced are relevant for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy, I find that the learned Judge was not justified to embark into an investigations about the relevance of such documents at this stage. This exercise will have to be done only at the time of appreciation of the evidence on merits. Apart from that the learned Judge has also held in the impugned order that such documents could be produced during the cross-examination of the witness which prima facie establishes the nexus with the matter in controversy. 9. Dealing with the contention of Shri Agha to the effect that such documents are fabricated, this aspect would have to be considered at the time of tendering such documents on the basis of 7 material on record. At this stage, there is no material to jump to such conclusion. As such, the contention raised by the respondents with regard to the authenticity of such documents is left open. I find there is no reason to disallow the petition to rely upon such documents. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The impugned order dated 21/08/2010 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioners are granted leave to rely upon the said documents referred to in para 4 of the application. (iii) The contentions of the respondents to the extent stated herein above are left open. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (v) Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-