1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3437 OF 2009 PETITION NO.3437 OF 2009 PETITION NO.3437 OF 2009 1. Smt.Sunanda w/o.Ramakant Desai & ors. Petitioners vs. 1. Naigaon Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & ors. Respondents Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.A.A.Kocharekar for the petitioners. Mr.J.J.Thakkar for respondent no.1. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 2nd April, 2009 P.C. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 13.01.2009 passed by the Cooperative Court No.3, Mumbai and the Order of dismissal of Revision against the same dated 25.02.2009. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, restricted his challenge to clause (1) of the impugned order dated 13.01.2009. The petitioners are ready to give description of the documents which they want to be produced by Mumbai Municipal Corporation as ordered in clause (2) of impugned order dated 13.01.2009. Admittedly, at the relevant time, there 2 were no detailed description of the documents placed on record and, therefore, the impugned order was passed observing that it amounts to fishing enquiry and based upon that the Court has observed that the Assistant Commissioner of Mumbai Municipal Corporation need not be called to give verbal evidence in the present dispute, for want of reasons as to why they want to examine the said Assistant Commissioner. 4. Once the petitioners are ready to give description of the documents which they want to be produced that will certainly change the tenure of their submission in support of their application. The learned Cooperative Court need to re-consider the Application filed by the petitioners after the description of the documents are given. The Court will re-consider thereafter whether the Application as prayed including to call Assistant Commissioner as a witness in the present dispute. 5. It is the choice of the parties basically to decide and/or submit the list of witnesses who, according to them, support their case and/or relevant for adjudication of the issues raised. The Court, unless prohibited or restricted by any law, needs to consider this aspect of calling such documents or witnesses as per the list given by the parties in accordance with law, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 6. The larned counsel for the respondent no.1-society submitted that the petitioners are delaying the matter by one way or the other. Therefore, it is necessary to file list of documents as early as possible. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 has also no objection if the petitioners give description of the documents which they wanted to be produced by Mumbai Municipal Corporation within two weeks. 7. In view of this, the impugned order with regard to clause (1) of impugned order dated 13.01.2009 is quashed and set aside. 8. The petitioner to submit description/list within two weeks. The learned Cooperative Court to decide and reconsider by giving opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate order again as early as possible, preferably within two weeks thereafter. 9. In view of this, without observing anything with regard to the maintainability of the Revision against this interlocutory order, the present writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]