dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.8732 OF 2007 PETITION NO.8732 OF 2007 PETITION NO.8732 OF 2007 Arvind Mehra Petitioner Vs. Sharda Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. & 3 ors. Respondents. Mr.Arvind Mehra, Petitioner in person. Mrs.V.V.Thorat with Mrs.Anita Chaturvedi i/b. Ms.Prachi Tatake for the Respondents 1 to 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 1st December 2008. : 1st December 2008. : 1st December 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioner has challenged the application dated 9.10.2007 whereby his application for framing additional issue stands rejected. The additional issue is as under: ‘Whether the following documents at serial nos. 1 to 7 relied upon by the defendants are genuine and valid documents?’ 2. The court has refused to frame this additional issue mainly on the ground that the plaintiff/petitioner has already closed his evidence and now the defendants are under cross-examination and, therefore, the proposed additional issue is not ( 2 ) necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. This facet is not correct. If there are pleadings on record and if denied by the other side and what is necessary in such circumstances is that the court has no option but to frame the additional issue. The issues which are already framed is in restricted numbers and cover the issue, the court can deny the issue, but denial to frame additional issue on the ground that the trial is already commenced and the additional issue is not necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties, is not correct. 3. The matter is pending with regard to the said documents being false and bogus in the criminal court. The basic complaint was filed by the mother of the petitioner. She is no more. However, without expressing anything so far as this facet is concerned and further that the documents, considering the nature of prayers as made including the averments just cannot be overlooked for proper adjudication of the matter. The genuineness of such documents, in any case, will definitely affect the rights of the parties in either way. Considering the suit, the right of plaintiff just cannot be overlooked. In my view, any decision on these documents will definitely affect the result. ( 3 ) 4. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to grant this application for framing additional issue. 5. The impugned order is accordingly quashed and set aside. The petition is therefore allowed to this extent. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b). However, it is observed that considering the stage of the proceedings, the trial is expedited. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)