IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1154 OF 2009 Mohammed Raza Abdul Shakoor & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. The Authorities of Maharashtra & Anr...Respondents ...... Mr.Shishir S.Joshi for Petitioners. Mr.G.W.Mattos, A.G.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 10, 2009. FEBRUARY 10, 2009. FEBRUARY 10, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Mattos, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. This Petition essentially takes exception : 2 : to the order passed by the Trial Court on 5th January 2009 refusing to grant further adjournment to the Petitioners/Plaintiffs to produce certified copies of the relevant documents. Indeed, in the order dated 17th November 2008, the Court has recorded the stand of the Plaintiffs that due to inadvertence, statement was made on the earlier occasion that they do not intend to lead further evidence but the Petitioners moved application on 17th November 2008 for permission to lead further evidence including by issuance of summons to Collector of Mumbai-III. The request of the Petitioners for permission to lead additional evidence is implicitly entertained by the Trial Court although the request for issuance of summons to Collector, Mumbai has been rejected. In that, the Trial Court by the same order permitted the Plaintiffs to obtain certified copies of the relevant documents and place the same on record. In deference to the said direction, the Plaintiffs applied to the said Authority for certified copies of the relevant documents which Application was submitted on 19th November 2008. However, as the Authorities did not issue certified copies inspite : 3 : of the said application, the Plaintiffs were required to seek adjournment before the Trial Court. On two occasions, the Trial Court acceded to that request but by the impugned order dated 5th January 2009, that request has been rejected. It is this order which is subject matter of the challenge in the present Writ Petition. 5. The question is: once the Trial Court has exercised discretion and permitted the Plaintiffs to produce further evidence, would it be appropriate to non-suit the Plaintiffs merely because the Plaintiffs are not in a position to produce certified copies of the relevant documents? The fact that the Plaintiffs have already applied for obtaining certified copies by way of application submitted to the concerned Authorities has not been doubted by the Trial Court. It is not the finding of the Trial Court that the certified copies were not made ready because of the inaction of the Plaintiffs as such. The Plaintiffs cannot be blamed for delay in issuance of certified copy. 6. To overcome this position, the Plaintiffs : 4 : have at the outset insisted for issuance of summons to the Collector, Mumbai but that request came to be rejected. Having rejected that request, the Trial Court was obliged to give sufficient time to the Plaintiffs to produce the certified copies of the relevant documents because the delay was not at the instance of the Plaintiffs, but attributable to the non-issuance of certified copies by the concerned Authorities. 7. If the Trial Court is of the opinion that the Authorities are not issuing certified copies because of which the trial is being delayed, may consider of issuing summons to the concerned Authority to speed up the trial. That option be exercised by the Trial Court if so advised. However, by no standards, the order which is impugned in this Petition closing the evidence of the Plaintiffs, for the aforesaid reason, can be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside with liberty to the Trial Court to issue summons to the concerned Authority if so advised. In the event, the Plaintiffs are not in a position to produce certified copies within four weeks from : 5 : today, may file such affidavit giving details as to the circumstances in which they are unable to obtain the certified copies of the relevant documents, in which case, the Trial Court may consider issuance of witness summons to the concerned Authorities. 8. Petition disposed of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.