1 wp5326-5328-11.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5326 OF 2011 Saraswati Mandir Sanstha and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Sou.Rekha Kundalik Ankush And Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5328 OF 2011 Saraswati Mandir Sanstha and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Sanjay Pralhasd Joshi and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Rompal Kohli for the petitioners Mr.P.J.Thorat for the respondents CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 4th AUGUST, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both these petitions can be disposed of by the common order as the issue involved is the same. 2 wp5326-5328-11.doc 3. By these petitions, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner management challenges the order dt.29.4.2011 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Pune Region, Solapur rejecting petitioner’s application for production of additional documents and oral evidence. 4. In both the matters, respondents original appellants were terminated by order dt.10.12.2008 and thereafter they preferred appeal under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 challenging the termination order. In those appeals, petitioner management filed their affidavit in reply dt.20.3.2009. Thereafter, management preferred the present application dt. 8.11.2010 for producing documents procured by them in the year 2008 from the respondent original appellants locker. It is to be noted that before filing the reply, those documents were in custody of the petitioner. Inspite of that, they failed to produce those documents before the Tribunal. 5. Considering these facts, Tribunal rejected their application on the ground that the petitioner failed to make out any case for non­production of those documents when they filed their reply and also on the ground that whenever there is a case of no 3 wp5326-5328-11.doc enquiry, no question of allowing to produce additional evidence arises. 6. Admittedly, in both the matters, recording of evidence of both the parties is over. Matter is for final hearing and at this stage, petitioner management filed an application for production of additional documents in appeal. 7. Considering these facts, I do not find any reason to interfere with the purely interlocutory order. Both the petitions are dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for stay of the order. There is no question of staying this order because the Tribunal has rejected the application for production of additional documents. Therefore, oral prayer is rejected. (K.K.TATED,J.)