1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.507 OF 2010 BHP Maritime Limited ...Petitioner vs. BHP Engineers (P) Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.R.S.Apte, Senior Advocate i/b Mr.Girish Poryani for the petitioner Mr.J.P.Avasia i /b M/s.Dastur Dadhich & Kalambi for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 2, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent. The 1 st respondent is the Appellant before the District Court and the petitioner is the 1 st respondent. The Appeal preferred by the 1 st respondent is directed against the order passed on application for temporary injunction filed during the pendency of the suit filed by the 1 st respondent. The said application was partly allowed. An application was made by the 1 st respondent in the pending Appeal seeking permission to produce additional documents on record. By the impugned order, the said application has been allowed. 2 The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that looking to the prayer made in the application at Exh.7, application could not have been allowed as the prayer is for reading the documents sought to be produced in evidence. He submitted that the application at Exh.7 ought to have been considered at the time of final hearing of the Appeal. He submitted that no case is made out for production of additional documents. He submitted that the main object of seeking production of additional documents is to seek an order of 2 remand. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The Appeal preferred by the 1 st respondent is against an interim order passed in the suit on application for temporary injunction. It is not in dispute that the stage of production of documents in the suit contemplated by Rule 1 of Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 is not yet over. The effect of the impugned order is that production of additional documents has been permitted. The order cannot be construed to mean that the documents which are allowed to be produced will be read in evidence in the suit. As the 1 st respondent has been permitted to file additional documents in Appeal, it is obvious that the Appellate Court is bound to permit the petitioner to produce the relevant additional documents for dealing with the documents produced by the 1 st respondent. If the petitioner is allowed to produce the documents, there may not be any occasion for passing any order of remand as the Appellate Court will have to consider the additional documents produced by both the parties at the time of hearing of the Appeal. 4 There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is, however, clarified that the impugned order cannot be construed to mean that the documents produced by the 1 st respondent will be read in the evidence in the suit. The only effect of the impugned order is that the production of documents has been allowed. 5 Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE