1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 123 OF 2008. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd., A private limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Suvarn Bandekar Building Swatantra Path Vasco-Da-Gama (Goa) through its constituted Attorney Shri Ramesh K. Shenoy .... Petitioner. Versus 1. M.s V.G. Quenim A Proprietary concern of Mr.Vassudev,alias Manohar Guiri Quenim, with its office at 1st floor, Keni Building Dr. Dada Vaidya road, Panaji, Goa Pin Code 403001., (deceased) Legal representatives of Defendant No.1. 1a) Mrs. Hemal Mohan Bose Daughter of V.G.Quenim and her husband 1b) Mr.Mohan Bose both residing at Laxmi Prasad D.B.Bandodkar Marg, Miramar, Panaji, Goa. 1c) Smt. Seema Rajiv Hede Daughter of V.G.Quenim and her husband 1d) Rajiv Sinai Hede both residing at Laxmi Prasad 2 D.B.Bandodkar Marg, Miramar, Panaji, Goa. 1e) Shri. Prasad Vassudev Keni son of V.G.Quenim and hiswife 1f) Smt. Vini Prasad Keni both residing at “Laxmi Prasad” D.B.Bandodkar Marg, Miramar, Panaji, Goa. 1g) Smt. Preeta Narayan Sardessai daughter of V.G.Quenim and her husband 1h) Shri Narayan Manohar Sardessai both residing at Yashodhan, Tonca, Caranzalem, Goa 2. Smt. Vilasini Vassudev alias Manohar Guiri Quenim, major, Housewife, residing at 'Laxmi Prasad', Miramar, Panaji,Goa. Respondents. Mr.S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. E. Dias, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. B. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, Advocate for the respondent . CORAM :- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 2 nd FEBRUARY, 2009 . DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 10 th FEBRUARY, 2009. JUDGMENT : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally with 3 consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition is filed against the order of Civil Judge, S.D. whereby he rejected the application of the plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 14(3). 3. The facts giving rise to this writ petition, are as follows : The petitioner has instituted the civil suit Nos. 7, 8, 14 and 21 of 2000 against the defendants / respondents for recovery of money. In the said suit, the defendants have also filed counterclaim. The defendants not only filed counterclaim but also counter suit bearing civil suit No.1/2003. As per the directions of the Supreme Court, the civil suits Nos. 7,8,14 and 21 of 2000 filed by the plaintiffs were tried and heard separately while that the defendant was directed to be tried separately and heard separately after conclusion of the arguments in the civil suits filed by the plaintiff. The civil suit filed by the defendants bearing No.1/2003, has been withdrawn by the defendants. 4. The plaintiff's contention is that since the suits 4 have been filed by the plaintiff on the basis of mutual, current and open account, all the transactions in all the suits are interconnected. Each of the transaction has a bearing on the other. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the evidence of the one of the witness examined by the defendants in his suit, would be very material for decision in these suits filed by the plaintiff. In fact all documents filed in civil suit No.1/2003, would be necessary for just decision of the suits filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, seeks to produce a certified copy of entire record of the civil suit No.1/2003. This application was also opposed by the defendants/ respondents. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the application is hit by res- judicata. since the application under Order XIII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. has been rejected by the Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 6. The plaintiff has filed an application specifically under sub rule 3 of Rule 14 of Order VII of C.P.C. Rule 14 of Order VII, reads as follows : “14. Production of document on which 5 plaintiff sues or relies.- (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, whereever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented,or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court,be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses,or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” 6 7. To my mind, this application under Order VII, Rule 14 is totally misconceived. Rule 14 deals with the production of those documents on which the plaintiff sues or relies. It deals with the filing of list of reliance. If such list of reliance is filed, the plaintiff has to state as to in whose possession such documents are. Further sub rule 3 deals with the production of documents which plaintiff ought to produce with the plaint, but had failed to produce. Obviously, therefore, sub rule 3 deals with production of documents on which the plaintiff's claim is based, such as promissory note, books of account or even a cheque. In the instant case, the plaintiff does not seek to produce the document on which the suit is based, but wants some other documents to be produced. In fact, Order XIII, Rule 1 deals with production of the documents which the plaintiff seeks to produce. Even rule 1of Order XIII says that such documents must be produced before the settlement of issues. Here, the documents are sought to be produced after conclusion of the arguments. The documents as stated above, are the certified copies of record in the other suit. These documents were certainly available to the plaintiff for being produced long back. The plaintiff chose not to produce those documents 7 that were within the plaintiff's knowledge. There is no explanation why they could not be produced early. Further, the application is omnibus and does not make any reference to specific documents. The relevance of each document must be shown with an explanation for the delay. Rule 3 of Order XIII permits the Court to reject the irrelevant documents. It is for this reason, the relevance of each documents sought to be produced, has to be proved. Since the relevance of each documents, is not to be found in the application, the application even if it is treated as one under Order XIII, Rule 1, can not be allowed and could not be allowed. The application like this one,which seeks to produce the entire record in another suit, cannot be allowed because the irrelevant documents have to be rejected. Since it is not clear which of the documents are relevant and its relevance is not proved by the plaintiff, prima facie, the application cannot be granted. Although the reasons given by the learned Judge of the Trial Court, are different, the Trial Court had rightly rejected the application. The writ petition, therefore, has no merit. It is dismissed. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA 8