1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.739 OF 2005 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1236 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO. 1158 OF 2005 Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. ... Appellant V/s S.M. Dyechem Ltd. & Others ... Respondents Mr. Kevic Setrelwad i/b Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM:S.A. BOBDE & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 21ST MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the document, Lease Deed dated 9th February, 1998, need not have been directed to be examined and impounded since the document was only produced on record along-with the plaint and was not sought to be tendered in evidence. He relied on the decision of this Court in Marine Container Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Dhirajlal Vora and others, reported in 2001 (Supp.) Bom. C.R.779. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct. The suit filed by the appellant is for possession under section 2 6 of the Specific Relief Act. In order to show prior possession, the plaintiff annexed document of lease along-with the plaint. It was obviously not annexed in order to prove the fact of lease or licence and establish any right thereon. The intention was merely to establish right of possession of the plaintiff. This must be taken in law as a collateral purpose. In the circumstances and in any case, the document was not tendered in evidence as expected. Therefore, it was not necessary to impound the document. It was not necessary to seize the document and impound at this stage. In the circumstances, having regard to the aforesaid decision of this Court in Marine Container Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., the order in appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 2 Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to return the document after retaining a photocopy on the record. Sd/- S.A. BOBDE, J. Sd/- A.A. SAYED, J.