1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4725 OF 2009 ... Mahadeo s/o Sitaram Bache, age 54 yrs, Occ. Agril, R/o G.P.No.2038, Phulenagar, Village Tq Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded. .PETITIONER. V E R S U S 1. Marathwada Gramin Bank, a Scheduled Commercial Bank Contituted under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, and having its head Office at Shivaji Nagar, Nanded and having its branches at various places including at village and Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded, through Its power of Attorney Shri Balaji Madhavrao Kulkarni, age 53 yrs, Occ. Service, R/o Nanded, who is authorised to sign on plaint, pleadings, etc on behalf of the plaintiff Bank. 2. Sow Parwatibai w/o Mahadeo Bacche, age 50 yrs, Occ. household, r/o G.P. No.2038, Phulenagar, Village and Tq. Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded. 2 3. Chandrakant s/o Vaijinathrao Parlikar, age 52 yrs, Occ. Service, C/o M.G. Bank, Branch at village Kitti, Adgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 4. Digambar s/o Dattatraya Rakhunde age 59 yrs, Occ. Service, C/o M.G. Bank, Br. at village Tq. & Dist Hingoli. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri M.D. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Milind Patil, Advocate for the respondent No.1. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel Shri Godhamgaonkar appearing on behalf of petitioner and Shri Milind Patil appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. By this petition, under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 25.03.2009 passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge Sr. Division, Nanded in Spl. C. S. No.155/2003 rejecting the petitioner’s application directing the respondent No. 1 to produce following documents 3 1) muster roll of the defendant No.1 from Bank branches Ardhapur, Malegaon and Manatha. 2) visit register of above bank branches. 3) Tour register of above bank branches. 2. A few facts of the present case are as under :- The respondent No.1-original plaintiff filed Special civil suit No. 155/2003 against the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4 for recovery of amount of Rs.2,67,236/-. In the said suit, petitioner original defendant No.1 filed an application for production of documents as stated herein above. The said application opposed by respondent No.1 Bank by filing say dated 04.03.2009. The respondent No.1, specifically stated in their say that the document at Sr. No.2 and 3 are not maintained by the bank and therefore, there is no question of directing the respondent No.1 to produce the same. As regards attendance register, the plea taken by the respondent No.1 that same is not part of the loan transaction, hence the petitioner cannot ask the respondent No.1 to produce the same in the court. It is not necessary to go in detail in the present case because 4 the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 original plaintiff made a statement on instructions from the officer of the Bank, that bank is ready to produce extract of muster roll of petitioner dated 10.12.1997 and 08.12.2000, from their branches at Malegaon and Manatha before Trial Court within four weeks from today and they will provide one copy of the same to the petitioner-original defendant no.1. With regard to other documents, respondent No.1 specifically stated in their reply dated 04.03.2009 that those documents are not maintained by the bank and therefore, no question arises to produce the same in court. Considering these facts and accepting the statement made by the learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 original plaintiff after taking instructions from their officer, I do not find any substance in the present writ petition and hence same is rejected with above mentioned clarifications. ( K. K. TATED ) JUDGE. ..... aaa/4725.09