1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.533 OF 2008 (NARAYAN RAMCHANDRA VIDYA & OTH. Vs GULABCHAND S. OSTWAL & ANR.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 31, 2008. 1. By this petition the petitioner takes exception to the order passed by learned 4th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Hinganghat below Exh.141 in Regular Civil Suit No.129/1988, whereby the learned Civil Judge allowed production of seven documents. These documents were admittedly not included in any list filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Copies of documents No.2 to 6 were, however, already on record of the trial Court. The plaintiff merely sought to file certified copies thereof, therefore, as far as these documents No.2 to 6 are concerned the objection of the petitioner/ original defendant was rightly rejected. 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has serious grievance about document at Sr.No.1, registered will executed by the plaintiff's grandfather Harakchand in the year 1973. As far as document No.7 is concerned, it is certified copy of the judgment and decree in civil suit filed by the plaintiff's grandmother against the plaintiff and his father. Since it is certified copy of the judgment, about that document also the petitioner need not have any serious grievance. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Will has not at all been referred to in the plaint or even in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court. It cannot be treated to be a document reserved for the purpose of cross- examination since it has nothing to do with the defendant. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that this will was filed only to show as to how the property came to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had claimed to be the owner of the property. The defendant a stranger to the family, was sought to be ejected on the allegation that he has encroached upon the 3 property. The defendant came with the case that the plaintiff's grandfather had, in fact, sold the property orally to the defendant for a sum of Rs.100/- in the year 1964. 5. If that be so, the bequest would be ineffective. Therefore, there is no serious reason for objecting to production of the will, though at belated stage, since it is only a matter which is introductory of facts, whereby the plaintiff claims title. Therefore, ordinarily the petitioner should not have rushed to this Court impugning the order passed by the learned trial Judge. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Gopal Vs. Hira Chand, reported at AIR 1994 RAJASTHAN 110. In that case, the trial Judge had refused to admit the documents on record since they were not mentioned in the list of reliance and no good cause was shown for their non-production earlier. In the present case, the application at Exh.141 does not disclose any good reason for not producing the documents at an earlier 4 stage. All the same, the observation in the said judgment would preclude reopening of the issue. Rajasthan High Court observed that the jurisdiction of the Court was extremely limited under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, refused to intervene in the matter. Writ jurisdiction, which has been invoked, because revisions do not lie, is narrower still and, therefore, unless it is shown that gross injustice would be caused if the Court does not intervene, this Court would not allow jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution to be invoked. In this case, as foregoing discussion would show, the documents, though filed belatedly are unlikely to prejudice the defence, considering the fact that the plaintiff and defendant are totally strangers, and also in light of the pleas raised by the defendants, namely that he has become owner of the property upon oral sale in the year 1964, which he could independently prove. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.