1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.231 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.1622 OF 2009 Dosch Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd. .. Plaintiffs Vs. Rodec Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. .. Defendants Mr.Mehul A. Shah i/b Mr.A.G.Shah for the plaintiffs Mr.Ashutosh Kane i/b Mr.H.W.Kane a/w Mr.Aditi Kulkarni for defendant no.1 CORAM : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : September 15, 2010 P.C. : 1. The matter is listed wrongly for ad interim relief. Both the sides state that the motion itself was directed to be disposed of. However, attention of the counsel was invited to pendency of Chamber Summons No.231 of 2010 which is stated to be a chamber summons moved on behalf of the defendant no.1 for a direction to the plaintiffs to give inspection of the original documents and furnish photocopies thereof. The documents are listed in the schedule to this Chamber Summons. 2 2. With the consent of the counsel, this Chamber Summons is taken up for hearing today and disposed of by this order. 3. Inviting my attention to the schedule, it is contended by Mr.Shah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs that inspection of the documents listed from Serial Nos. 1 to 16 has been given and wherever sought photocopies are being provided. The plaintiffs will not rely upon the document listed at serial no.17. As far as documents at serial no.18 and 19 in the schedule are concerned, it is stated that these are statements of annual sales but the advocate appearing for defendant no.4 disputes the fact that inspection was given for the relevant period. Inspection is given from the period 2002 whereas the plaintiffs seeks to rely upon the statement of annual sales of their goods from 1988 to 1996. 4. Needless to state that if the statements at item no.18 and 19 are available and if inspection is not given within a period of 2 weeks from today, the plaintiffs will not be permitted to rely upon these documents in the pending notice of motion. It is stated that the plaintiffs are not relying upon item no.21 and 25 of the schedule. 5. It is urged by defendant no.1 that what the plaintiffs are relying upon are copies of invoices which are stated to be annexed to the plaint but these are typed copies and there is no statement that they are compared with the original or are copies of the original. 3 6. In my view such an objection can be raised at an appropriate stage and merely because this chamber summons is being disposed of does not mean that the court has pronounced upon the genuineness or otherwise of the documents. All contentions in that behalf are kept open. 7. In the light of the statements made on affidavit and today during the course of the oral argument by the advocate appearing for the plaintiffs, nothing survives in this Chamber Summons. Needless to state that wherever the inspection is not provided, the plaintiffs will not be permitted to rely upon that document. 8. Chamber Summons disposed of with no order as to costs. ( S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. )