mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6042 of 2008 Chinchwad Devasthan Trust, & Anr. .. Petitioners versus Pune Municipal Corporation .. Respondent ... Mr.P.S. Dani for the petitioners. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 29th August 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the petitoiner. 2. The apprehension of the petitioner that unless the Archivist was to be summoned so as to facilitate exhibition of the documents in question, the appeal could not proceed on merits is misplaced. The court below put in no unmistakable terms in pnenultimate paragraph of the impugned judgement that the relief claimed in the application will be decided after hearing both parties on merits and has further observed that it will consider the documents along with its effect and relevancy. Needless to observe that if the appellate court were to be convinced about the necessity of permitting the petitioner to exhibit the documents in question, as prayed in the application, will have to pass such appropriate order as may be warranted in that situation. 3. No interference with the discretionary order is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. All questions in the pending application are left open. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)