1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4671/2010 ( Dinesh P kakad vs. Vrushali P Upadhye ) 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 : 15 th DECEMBER, 2010. Heard Mr S V Sohoni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Advocate Gandhi for respondent, in response to notice of final disposal This Court is not concerned with the merits of the controversy in Special Civil Suit No.48/2008 instituted by present respondent against the petitioner. The question which appears to be relevant and posed before the trial Court is whether the present petitioner has attended the marriage of elder sister of the respondent. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner upon a compact disc (CD) and video shooting of that marriage to contend that it shows his presence. The existence of album containing photographs of that marriage with witness Shri Prakash Upadhey is admitted position. The fact of video shooting is also admitted position. The CD is also available with Shri Prakash Upadhye. The petitioner, therefore, wanted him to produce said documents. The trial Court has rejected that request. According to Advocate Sohoni, as existence of documents in possession of Prakash although the father 2 of the respondent is admitted, those documents ought to have been allowed to be called and seen by the trial Court. Advocate Gandhi states that questions were put to said witness Shri Prakash and he has stated that he does not specifically remember whether the petitioner was present in the marriage of his elder daughter or not. He has also invited attention to suggestion given to Prakash in cross-examination. The suggestions, at the most, show that the copy of CD was given by the present respondent to the petitioner. The witness has deposed that the petitioner may have obtained copy of CD by managing the Photographer. The only relevant fact is about the presence of petitioner in that marriage. The presence is not accepted in straight words by witness Prakash. The application for production of CD was opposed by present respondent. The attendance can be verified only after perusal of the album containing photographs, video shooting, CD. The relevance of this fact is not in dispute. Its impact on the matter can be looked into by the trial Court. Hence, the impugned order passed on 12.8.2010 below Exh. 68 is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to recall Shri Prakash Upadhye with said CD/ photographs in accordance with law. The present respondent is also free to produce those documents on record. The Writ Petition is,thus, partly allowed. No costs. At this stage, Mr Gandhi states that cross- examination of respondent was not completed expeditiously and it was spread for 6 to 7 dates. He, therefore, states that the mater should be expedited as 3 these efforts are being made by the petitioner only to harass the respondent. The matter was already expedited by this Court in earlier round of litigation. In the circumstances, the trial Court shall endeavour to decide the suit itself as early as possible and, in any case, within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order to it. JUDGE sahare.