1 lpa146.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.146 OF 2011 (WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4335 OF 2011) IN WRIT PETITION NO.11152 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and the Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre, & Shri M. T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 14th July, 2011 Shri A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, for the appellants. Smt. Anjali B. Dube, Advocate for respondent. --- 1. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, on 28.1.2011 in Writ Petition No.11152 of 2011. By this order, the learned Single Judge vacated the order passed by the trial court refusing permission to the appellants herein, who are the defendants before the trial court, to produce certain documents. These documents related to the daily account records for the years 2007-08, 2 lpa146.11 2008-09 and 2009-10 with respect to the shop "Novelty". The application filed by the appellant on 10.8.2010 was rejected by the order of the trial court, passed on 26.10.2010. 2. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff, had also filed an application on 11.3.2010 before the trial court, seeking directions against the defendants to file account books, sale purchase vouchers, light bills and bank pass book of the firm run by them. That application, we have been informed, is still pending before the trial court. 3. In our opinion, therefore, the trial court ought to have allowed the application filed by the present appellants-defendants, since the appellants wanted to produce the very same documents, as were sought for by the respondent herein. Whether these documents are relevant or not, is a matter which the trial court would consider when the suit is heard. What is evidentiary value of these documents is an issue which the trial court will assess when it decides the 3 lpa146.11 suit. One of the reasons for which the trial court has disallowed the application is that the documents which were sought to be produced, were bulky. This cannot be a reason for refusing permission to produce the documents. Apart from this, there is no delay in filing the application requesting for permission to produce the documents as the Respondent's application for production of those documents is still pending. 4. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as by the trial court on 6.10.2010 and 26.10.2010 are set aside. The documents shall be produced by the appellants within two weeks from today before the trial court. The trial court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. 5. Appeal disposed of, accordingly. (M.T. JOSHI) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/lpa146.11