1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1152 OF 2010 Umesh Narayan Puthran Petitioner versus The Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay Respondent Mr.Anil Singh i/by Devendra Sharma for petitioner. Mr.M.M.Malvankar for BMC. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd February 2010 PC : 1. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The Notice of Motion taken out by the petitioner for temporary injunction is pending in which there is an ad-interim relief operating in favour of the petitioner. An application made by the petitioner praying for issuing witness summons to MMRDA for production of certain documents has been rejected. The mandate of Rule 3A of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is that where an ad-interim relief of injunction is granted, the Court has to endeavour to decide the interim application within thirty days. At the stage when the Notice of Motion for temporary injunction is heard, only tentative findings are to be recorded for the purposes of coming to the conclusion as to whether a prima face case is made out. If according to the case of 2 petitioner, the respondent-Corporation is in possession of the copies of documents and if the said Corporation has not produced copies of the documents, it is always open for the petitioner to pray for drawing adverse inference against the respondent-Corporation. 2. Though the reasons recorded by the Trial Court are not satisfactory, at this stage the Trial Court was justified in declining the prayer for issuing a witness summons. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)