1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.358 OF 2010 EDC Limited, a Government Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at EDC House, 1st Floor, Dr. A.B. Road, Panaji-Goa, through its Dy. General Manager. …. Petitioner V/s 1. M/s. Murphy Electronics Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at Sotiamol, Shiroda, Ponda, Goa and its Head Office at 58, Ranade Road, Opp. State Bank of India, Dadar (West) Mumbai-400 028. 2. M/s. VVC Electronics, a Proprietary concern of Smt. Pramodini Shirodkar, having its office at Plot No.462, Shirodkar Industries, Sotiamol, Shiroda, Ponda-Goa-403 103 and its Head Office at Anandlay, 58, Ranade Road, Dadar (west), Mumbai-400 028. …. Respondents Shri D. Pangam, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri I. Agha, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 14th SEPTEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri D. Pangam, the learned Counsel appearing for 2 the petitioner and Shri I. Agha, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service on rule. 3. The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji dated 28/01/2010, whereby an application filed by the petitioner to file additional documents came to be rejected. It is the contention of the petitioner that by application dated 29/10/2009, the petitioners sought leave of the Court in the proceedings initiated by them under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation's Act, 1951 to produce additional documents as referred to at para 4 of the said application. It is further their case that the said documents are official records maintained by the statutory companies besides correspondence exchanged between the petitioners and such statutory companies which are material for the purpose of adjudicating the matter in controversy in the said proceedings. 3 4. Shri Pangam, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the said documents became material to decide the matter in controversy in view of the cross- examination by the respondent of AW2/Shri Borkar. The learned Counsel further submitted that the said documents in fact are in the nature of rebuttal evidence in answer to the case sought to be made out by the respondents in the cross-examination of the said witness. The learned Counsel further submitted that considering the nature of the said documents which are official records, the question of doubting the authenticity of the said documents would not arise. The learned Counsel, as such, submitted that great prejudice shall occasion to the petitioner in case the said documents are not allowed to be produced in proceeding before the learned District Judge and as such the impugned order be quashed and set aside and necessary leave be granted to rely on the said documents. 5. On the other hand, Shri Agha, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently argued opposing the above petition on the ground that the said documents are not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the said documents are 4 fabricated documents and they are manufactured by the petitioner to advance their frivolous case before the learned District Judge. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the documents are fabricated the question of granting any relief to produce the said documents would not arise. The learned Counsel further submitted that the said documents have no nexus with the matter in controversy before the Court below. The learned Counsel further submitted that this Court should not interfere in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the present petition. 6. Dealing with the contention of both the Counsel, it is well settled that normally this Court does not exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such matters, nevertheless, when there is erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below which has resulted in irreparable prejudice to the aggrieved party by such order, such jurisdiction can be exercised as otherwise it would lead to failure of justice to such party. 7. In the present case, on perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned Judge in the impugned order has noted thus: “The Applicant had also not availed of the 5 opportunity to seek leave to produce documents despite questions being put to Borkar AW1 during the Cross-examination relating to the transaction between GEL and the Respondent no.1.” This itself shows that the learned Judge was conscious of the fact that the said documents were sought to be produced in answer to the claim of the respondents in the cross-examination of AW1. The said observation further fortifies the contention of Shri Pangam that the said documents have a nexus with the dispute between the parties. 8. With regard to the contention of Shri Agha to the effect that the documents are fabricated and/or the authenticity of such documents are doubted such aspects can always be considered by the learned Judge whilst appreciating the evidence on record. The respondents would have an ample opportunity to cross- examine the party to establish such contention, in case leave is granted to produce the documents in accordance with law. The respondents would have an opportunity to challenge the said documents in cross-examining or leading further evidence in support of any such contention. 9. Keeping the right of the respondents to dispute the authenticity or otherwise of the said documents, I find no reason 6 why the petitioner should not be granted leave to rely upon the said documents in the proceedings pending before the learned District Judge. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following : O R D E R (i) The impugned judgment dated 28.1.2010 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioners are granted leave to produce the documents referred to in para 4 of the application. The contention of the respondents to the extent stated herein are left open. (iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (iv) The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-