1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5435/2009. (Prabhakar Pundlik Satpute . -: versus :- Prakash Pundlik Satpute and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 11, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri M.P. Khajanchi, learned Counsel for for petitioner and Shri S. Walekar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4. The petitioner / plaintiff moved an application at Exh.87 in Special Civil Suit No.120/2008 and sought discovery on oath in relation to document styled as Wahiwat Patra dated 11.04.1970. The said document is styled as Partition Deed [Watni Patra]. They claimed that while perusing the records of pending Appeal No.143/2008 on 10.12.2009 the existence of said document came to their knowledge. The said application has been rejected on 11.12.2009, as document did not figure in pleadings. The respondent / defendant has not filed any reply to this application at Exh.87. 2 Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel for petitioner contends that, only discovery on oath was sought for on the basis of the knowledge obtained after inspection of the Regular Civil Appeal No. 143/2008. He argues that there is no finding that, there was no inspection on 10.12.2009 or than that, the application was moved only to delay the proceeding. Shri Walekar, learned counsel on the other points out that, in plaint as filed, in paragraph no.1 a partition of 1970 is already pleaded. According to him, said reference is cryptic, but, then it shows that the document was within the knowledge of the petitioner / plaintiff. Special Civil Suit No. 120/2008 is for partition and separate possession. The plaintiff and defendant are the heirs of deceased Pundlik, who is claimed to be party to memorandum of partition dated 11.04.1970. It is therefore, apparent that the document which was used in earlier litigation and is pending consideration in Regular Civil Appeal No. 143/2008 is therefore of some relevance and unless and until the finding in this respect is recorded, the Trial Court could not have rejected the application. The Application Exh.87 was only seeking direction to defendant nos. 1 to 4 to discover document on oath with contention that the said document was in possession of Pundlik and thereafter is in possession of respondents. Considering the bearing which said document may have on present controversy, I find the reasons in the impugned order unsustainable. The said order is therefore, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to file their reply to the application at Exh.87 by 27.01.2010. After 3 such reply is filed, the Court below to proceed further with consideration of the said application in accordance with law. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs. Parties inform that the matter was earlier made time bound and was to be decided by 31.12.2009. In the interest of justice, the said time is extended till 30.06.2010. JUDGE Rgd.