... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO.613 OF 2008 Mrs. Julie Lobo, major, widow, resident of 12 Taiyabia Mansion, Parel, Mumbai. ... Petitioner v e r s u s Mrs. Angela Geraldine D'souza, major, married, resident at Grande Peddem,' Anjuna, Bardez-Goa. ... Respondent Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. N. N. Sardessai, Advocate for the Respondent. ... 2 ... CORAM: A. P. LAVANDE, J. JUDGMENT RESERVED: 18.11.2008. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 01.12.2008. JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Thali, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sardessai, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. Rule, by consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 22.09.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Special Civil Suit No.204/1991/A, by which the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the defendant to produce additional document. ... 3 ... 4. Briefly, the facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows: The petitioner filed the above referred suit against the respondent/defendant seeking permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of the suit property. The suit was contested by the defendant. On 19.04.2008 the defendant filed an application to produce the plan which was allowed by the Trial Court. On 30.08.2008, written arguments were filed. Thereafter on 08.09.2008, the defendant filed an application seeking leave to produce additional document i.e. letter dated 17.04.2008 from the Directorate of Settlement and Land Records, Panaji issued by the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer. The same was opposed by the plaintiff. However, by the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the application and issued summons to the ... 4 ... Baby P.K., Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer, Panaji. 5. Mr. Thali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that since the matter was closed for judgment, the application filed by the respondent/defendant not maintainable. He further submitted that the Trial Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order in as much as that though the defendant sought to produce the document, the Trial Court not only allowed the production of document but permitted the defendant to examine the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer who had issued the said letter. He therefore, submitted that the impugned order being patently illegal is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, Mr. Thali relied upon the judgments ... 5 ... in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and ors. reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 993 and Wasudeo Sonone and anr. v. Jagannath Ramlaji Judgele reported in AIR 1986 Bombay 43. 6. Per contra, Mr. Sardessai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/defendant submitted that the application filed by the defendant was maintainable since such an application could have been filed before delivery of the judgment. In any even he submitted that substantial justice has been done by the impugned order by permitting the defendant to lead evidence to prove her defence. He further submitted that the Trial Court has permitted the examination of the officer who has issued the letter since objection was taken by the plaintiff that mere production of the documents would be of no help to the defendant since the same was required to ... 6 ... be proved by examining the person who has issued the same. In support of his submission, Mr. Sardessai relied on the judgment in Smt. Chitrakala Fal Dessai v. Shri Balu Marathe alias Mane reported in 2006 (5) ALL MR 438. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record and judgments relied upon. 8. No doubt, the defendant has filed earlier an application dated 19.04.2008 to produce the plan which was allowed by the Court and she could have very well filed the application seeking leave to produce any other additional document at the same time. However, the fact remains that the letter issued by the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer is dated 17.04.2008 and as such, could not have been ... 7 ... produced earlier. No doubt, the defendant could have procured the said letter earlier but the mere fact that the defendant did not procure the said letter earlier would not be a ground to reject the prayer of the defendant to produce additional documents. The plaintiff can very well by compensated by costs for producing the said document at a later stage. By the impugned order, substantial justice has been done by the Trial Court by giving opportunity to the defendant to prove her defence. In so far as the order passed by the Trial Court summoning the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer who had issued the said letter is concerned, the fact remains that it was on account of the objection taken by the defendant that mere production of the document would be of no help to the defendant that the Trial Court permitted the defendant to examine the said witness. I therefore, find that the impugned order advances ... 8 ... substantial justice. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion, no interference is warranted by this Court against the impugned order. The plaintiff can very well be compensated by awarding costs. In so far as the judgments relied upon by Mr. Thali are concerned, I do not deem it necessary to refer to the same, since the said judgments do not advance the case of the petitioner. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondent/defendant shall pay costs of Rs.1500/- to the plaintiff/petitioner before examining Shri Baby P.K. in terms of the order passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall permit the defendant to examine Mr. Baby P.K. Only after costs are paid. 10. Rule is discharged, Interim order dated ... 9 ... 14.10.2008 staying further proceedings in Special Civil Suit No.204/1991/A is vacated. Parties either in person or through their counsel shall appear before the Trial Court on 12.12.2008 at 10.00 a.m. Since the suit is of the year 1991, the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously and in any case on or before 28.02.2009. A. P. LAVANDE, J. lh/.