-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 576 OF 2011 Shri Pandu Krishna Naik, Member of Yesso Sagun Naik, Vaunshaj Trust, resident of Tisk, Ponda, Goa. …. Petitioner (Original Applicant) V e r s u s 1. Shri Vinayak Shinkre, Son of late Padmanabh Shinkre of full age, Landlord, Karta of Shinkre family, Residing at Panditwada, Ponda-Goa. (deceased by legal heirs). (a) Shri Hemant Vinayak Shinkre, Son of late Vinayak Shinkre, (b) Smt. Seema Hemand Shinkre, Wife of Shri Hemant Shinkre, (c) Shri Shyam Vinayak Shinkre, Son of Late Vinayak Shinkre (d) Smt. Shoba Shyam Shinkre, wife of Shri Shyam Shinkre, all residing at House No.96, Krishna Kunj Dhavli, Ponda Goa. …. Respondents (Original Respondents) Shri S.R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. Menezes, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 28 th September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri Rivonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. -2- 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Shri Menezes waives service on behalf of the respondents. 3. The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Panaji dated 11/08/2011 whereby the prayer of the petitioner to produce on record the documents mentioned in the application dated 02/08/2011 at para 2(i) to 2(vii) came to be rejected. It was the contention of the Petitioner that along with the affidavit in evidence of Aw.1, documents were produced as specified at Para 2 of the said application and that in view of an objection raised by the Respondents that Aw.1 cannot produce the authorisation as it was not signed by him, the documents were not exhibited. It was further the contention of the Petitioner that the proof of the contents of the documents cannot be agitated at this stage of the proceedings. It is further the case of the Petitioner that documents produced by the Petitioner are essentially to prove their claim in the proceedings and grave prejudice shall occasion to them in case they are not exhibited and, accordingly, sought leave to rely upon the said documents. The learned Judge by the impugned Order, has come to the conclusion that the objection is raised to the mode of proof of the said documents and, as such, the documents cannot be exhibited and accordingly the application came to be rejected. 4. Shri Rivonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned Order and pointed out that the Petitioner's only desire to produce the said documents subject to proof and, as such, the learned Judge was -3- not justified to refuse leave to rely upon the said documents. The learned Counsel further pointed out that whilst remaining the matter, this Court had given an opportunity to the Petitioner to lead oral and documentary evidence and, as such, the learned Judge was not justified to refuse leave to rely upon the said documents. The learned Counsel as such submitted that authenticity of the said documents cannot be doubted and, as such, the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, has supported the impugned Order. Learned Counsel further points out that even assuming that the documents are allowed to be relied upon the same can be produced subject to proof in accordance with law. Learned Counsel further pointed out that merely producing the documents would not dispense the requirement for the Petitioner to prove the said documents in accordance with law. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. At the hearing of the above Petition, the documents were produced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner for inspection of the Counsel appearing for the Respondents. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that he is in a position to produce the certified copies of all the aforesaid documents which, according to him, are the official records maintained in public office. Shri Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has pointed out that the person who produces the said documents would have to confirm/identify the signatory of the respective documents. -4- 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the Judgments passed by this Court whilst remanding the matter, I find that the learned judge was not justified to refuse leave to the Petitioner to rely upon the said documents. The said documents appear to be relevant for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy. Merely granting leave to produce the documents by itself, does not dispense the party to prove the contents thereof. Hence, I find that the impugned Order passed by the learned Judge dated 11.08.2011 cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The Petitioner is allowed to rely upon the documents referred to at Paras 2(i) to 2(vii) in the application subject to proof in accordance with law. 8. At this stage, both the learned Counsel pointed out that this Court whilst remanding the matter had directed that the matter be disposed of within a period of six months. They accordingly prayed that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the time for disposal of the reference proceedings be extended. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The impugned order dated 11/08/2011 is quashed and set aside. (ii) Petitioner is permitted to produce the documents at para 2(i) to 2(vii) as mentioned in the application dated 2/08/2011 subject to proof in accordance with law. -5- (iii) The Reference Court is directed to dispose of the reference within six months from today. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (v) Petition stands disposed of with no orders as to costs. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*