1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.34 OF 2010 Vijaya Balasaheb Wagh .. Petitioner versus Ramdas Chindha Patil .. Respondent Mr.Girish R. Agrawal for the petitioner. Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 3rd March 2010. P.C.: . On the last date the parties were put to notice that an endeavour will be made to decide the petition finally at the stage of admission. The respondent is the original plaintiff and the petitioner is the original defendant. The respondent-plaintiff has already adduced evidence. The petitioner- defendant filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of her witness No.3 Mr.Balasaheb Wagh. Alongwith the affidavit, an application was made by the said witness seeking permission to produce documents which were referred to in his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The said application was opposed by the respondent-plaintiff on the ground that the documents are sought to be produced after the evidence of the respondent and his two witnesses has been closed. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has rejected the application. 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the documents which are sought to be produced were in the custody of the witness. He submitted that the said documents were tendered alongwith the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the said witness. As the documents were being produced from the custody of the witness the production thereof ought to have been allowed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the witness is the husband of the petitioner and the documents which are sought to be produced have been referred to in the affidavit in lieu of examination- in-chief of the petitioner. He submitted that documents could have been produced earlier and therefore the trial Court is right in rejecting the application. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is true that the witness No.3 sought to be examined by the petitioner is her husband. However, the fact remains that the documents which are sought to be produced alongwith application at Exhibit 55 were the documents in the custody of the witness. In my view, the production of the said documents ought to have been allowed. The respondent can cross-examine the witness on the said documents. Moreover, the respondent can seek recall of his witnesses for dealing with the said documents and may apply for recall of the petitioner and her other witnesses for further cross-examination on the basis of the said documents. However, opportunity to produce the documents 3 could have been denied. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned order dated 4thNovember 2009 is quashed and set aside and the application at Exhibit 55 is hereby allowed and the witness is permitted to produce the documents. (b) It will be open for the respondent to cross-examine witness on the said documents. It will be also open for the respondent to recall his own witnesses for recording further examination-in-chief in the light of the said documents. The respondent can also apply for recall of the petitioner and the other witnesses examined by the petitioner for limited purposes of cross-examining them on the said documents. (c) It is made clear that under this order only production of the documents is allowed and the petitioner will have to prove the said documents. (d) The petition is allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA,J)