Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1488 of 2009 Ritika M. Chandnani & anr. ...Petitioner v/s. Sarfaraz Munir Ahmed Shamsi & anr. ...Respondent Mr. P.S.Dani i/b. Mrs. Neela A. Dholakia for the petitioner. Mr. J.A.Udaipuri i/b. Vinay S. Bhorge for respondents 1 & 2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : MARCH 18, 2009 : MARCH 18, 2009 : MARCH 18, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. According to Petitioners, even if Petitioners’ defence has been struck out, nothing precludes the Petitioners from moving the Court to enable them to produce certified copies of Court proceedings between the plaintiffs and Head landlord. The argument clearly overlooks that, that attempt would be to permit the Petitioners to produce their own evidence. Moreover, merely because the documents which the Petitioners propose to produce are certified copies cannot be straightway read into evidence as such. It would have been a different matter if the Petitioners were to apply to the Appellate Court for allowing them to further cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness so as to confront them in the light of the subsequent development and in 2 particular the contents of the certified copies of the documents which they intend to produce. That perhaps may be permissible in the light of the exposition of the Apex Court in Modula India v/s. Kamakshya Singh Deo Modula India v/s. Kamakshya Singh Deo Modula India v/s. Kamakshya Singh Deo reported reported reported in (1988) 4 SCC 619 in (1988) 4 SCC 619 in (1988) 4 SCC 619 in particular para 16, 18 and 19 thereof. The Apex Court has taken the view that the defendant can be allowed right to cross-examination and arguments that is the limited indulgence that is available to the defendant whose defence is struck off. Thus understood, no fault can be found with the Court below in rejecting the Petitioners’ subject application. 3. Hence, this Petition fails. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the Petitioners to take out formal application before the Appellate Court seeking appropriate relief as may be advised so as to permit them to further cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses. If such application is filed, the same will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 4. Petition disposed of accordingly. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]