1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8832 OF 2009 Garware Club House )..Petitioners Vs Vatsal Jagdish Mehta & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar i/by M/s.Dhruve Liladhar & Co.for the petitioners. Mr. V. Mannadiar @ V.Phal i/by M.Gawde for the respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr.Warerkar for the respondent no.5. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 25th November, 2009. PC 1 Heard both sides. In my view, the matter can be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Hence, rule. By consent of parties, rule returnable forthwith. 2 This is a petition filed by the petitioners impugning an order dated 11.9.2009 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai below Exhibits-7 & 8 in S.C.Suit No.5154 of 2005. The application at Exhibit-7 pertained to production of certain documents to enable the plaintiff to submit list of documents. The application at Exhibit-8 was for a direction to defendant no.1 to make a discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in their possession or power relating to the matter in dispute in the proceedings and also for a 2 direction to defendant no.1 to produce six documents which were mentioned in the said application. The documents in respect of which production was sought were as under :- 1 Register of Members of the 1st Defendant right from inception of the club house till date ; 2 Minutes of the 1st Defendants Managing Committee Meetings from 01st April 1991 to 31st March 2001 ; 3 1st Defendants Annual Report, Profit & Loss Account, Balance Sheet as also the Auditors Report for the year ended 31st march 2005 ; 4 Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement arrived at by & between the 1st Defendant and the 4th Defendant ; 5 List of members who have already been enrolled as Members of the 1st Defendant under the category of “Members sons/Daughters” along with their respective application forms ; 6 Wait list maintained by the 1st Defendant in respect of persons seeking admission to the club from its inception till 2005. 3 By the impugned order the trial Court has partly allowed Exhibits-7 & 8 and defendant no.1 has been directed to make available the wait list maintained by them as specified in item-6 of page-4 of the application. The order further states that the matter has been adjourned for inspection of documents by defendant no.1. Considering the averments made in the plaint and the nature of the dispute, in my view, it is possible that the document nos.5 & 6 may possibly have some relevance to the dispute in question. The impugned order directs only production of document at item no.6. In such circumstances, 3 the order is set aside and it is directed that the defendant no.1 will produce only for the scrutiny of the court the documents at item nos.5 & 6 of Exhibit-8. On production, the Court will scrutinize the documents in order to determine their relevancy vis-a-vis the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. If the documents are found to be relevant, then the Court will decide the question of grant of inspection after hearing defendant no.1 in this regard. If the court directs that inspection is required to be given then the actual grant of inspection will be deferred for a period of 3 weeks from the date of the order. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petition stands disposed off. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 4