1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2659 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 151 OF 1993 1. Shivraj Maharudrappa Wadje, and another ....Applicants. Versus 1. Mulshankar Ramchandra Kapse ....Respondents. Shri. Chaitanya Dharurkar Advocate holding for Shri. S.V. Chillarge, Advocate for the applicants. Shri. V.C. Solshe, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 3rd March, 2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. By this application, the applicants/original appellants seek leave to present the certified copies of the plaint presented to Civil Court and the application tendered by the respondent/original defendant before the Rent Controller. 2. The counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has objected for entertaining the application on the ground that it would not be permissible to applicants to place on record the copies of plaints and application in view of Order 41, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the belated stage. The counsel appearing for the respondent places 2 reliance on the judgment in the matter of Subhangi Krishna Patil Vs. Rupali Krishnant Bachhe (Patil) and another reported in 2010 (1) Mh.L.J. 253. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the respective counsel. 4. Considering the nature of documents which are being produced along with the application, I am inclined to allow the application, for following reasons. 5. The first document is the copy of the application tendered by the respondent/original defendant with the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the appellants. It is not controverted that such application is not presented and the proceedings are not initiated. Another three certified copies are in respect of Regular Civil Suit No. 276/1989, Regular Civil Suit No. 15/2008 and Regular Civil Suit No. 86/2005 presented by the respondent No. 1/original defendant, seeking recovery of rent from the appellant herein. The stand taken in all these proceedings is that the plaintiffs/appellants are in possession over the suit premises as sub- tenants inducted by the original lessee. The presentation of the suits has not been controverted by the respondents/original defendants. It cannot be said that the respondent/defendant is taken by surprise on presentation of the documents. The objection raised by the respondent/original defendant can be entertained only in respect of the 3 copy of extract relating to registration of the firm. The production of copy of extract of registration of firm dated 28.11.1979 is disallowed. So far as other copies are concerned which are in the nature of plaint, presented by respondent himself to Civil Court and application tendered to Rent Controller are permitted to be taken on record. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/ca2659.10