1 WP No.1077/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1077 of 2011 M/s.Vasai Pragati Co-op Credit Society Ltd. ... Petitioner versus Smt.Sushila Gajanan Patil and ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. Vishal Kanade i/b S.S. Gawde for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 13th July 2011 P.C. 1. In a suit filed by respondent nos.1 and 2, the petitioner (defendant no.4) raised the preliminary objection to the jursdiction of a court to entertain and try the suit. Accordingly, a following preliminary issue was framed. “Whether this court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit?” 2. Parties were given liberty to adduce evidence in support of the preliminary issue. At the hearing, the petitioner made an application for issuing of a witness summons to a witness for the purpose of production of certain documents. By an order dated 25 2 WP No.1077/11 January 2011, that application was rejected. That order is impugned in the present petition. 3. The list of documents of which production was sought is annexed as Exhibit-H to the petition. The documents at Sr. No.1 is a public document and petitioner can always produce a certified copy thereof. So far as document nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned, the trial Judge has held that they are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue of jurisdiction. After having heard Mr.Kanade, learned counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that though the documents may be relevant for the purpose of deciding other issues that may arise in the suit they are not relevant for deciding the issue of jurisdiction. Mr.Kanade was unable to point out how the said documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue of jurisdiction of the Court. Since the present hearing in the suit is restricted to decide the issue of jurisdiction of the court, in my view, the trial court committed no error in rejecting the request for issue of witness summons. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)