1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6171 OF 2009 Chandrashekhar Subbanna Shetty ...Petitioner vs. Mrs.Pushpa Tukra Shetty & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 P.C. 1 The Petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. The petitioner who is the original plaintiff has taken an exception to the order dated 15 th June 2009 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court on the notice of motion taken out by the first respondent (first defendant). The prayer in the notice of motion taken out by the first respondent was that the petitioner plaintiff be directed to hand over to the first respondent copies of the original licences issued for running the restaurant and bar as well as other licences refereed to in the prayers made therein. Another prayer in the notice of motion is for direction to the petitioner to produce original licences referred to in the prayer clause (b) of the notice of motion. By the impugned order, the notice of motion was allowed and the petitioner was directed to hand over copies of the various licences mentioned in the clause (2) of the operative part of the impugned order to the first 2 respondent. 2 The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on various grounds. One of the grounds is that when the notice of motion was heard, the petitioner s Advocate was absent and therefore, the petitioner has not been heard. The petitioner has tendered affidavit dated 7 th September 2009. In the affidavit, he has stated that he is in possession of the 5 original licences/certificates listed in paragraph 3 thereof. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, he has stated that except licences/certificates referred to in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, he was not possessing any other licence or permit. He has stated that in the event the order impugned is set aside and the notice of motion is remanded to the trial court, the petitioner will keep the said licences and permits in his custody and he will not part with the same. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that in fact the prayer in the notice of motion was that the petitioner be directed to supply copies of all the licences to the first respondent and/or to produce the originals in the court but the said prayer has not been granted. 3 Considering the fact that the petitioner s Advocate was not present when the notice of motion was heard and considering the fact that the second prayer in the notice of motion has not been considered, interests of justice 3 will be served if by setting aside the impugned order, the notice of motion is directed to be heard afresh. The petitioner has given undertakings that he will not part with possession of the original licences/permits more particularly set out in the paragraph 3 of his affidavit dated 7 th September 2009. Therefore, in the event, the first respondent succeeds, he is adequately protected as the trial court can always direct the petitioner to produce or deliver the originals. 4 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Undertakings of the petitioner in affidavit dated 7 th September 2009 are accepted. ii)Impugned Judgment and Order dated 15 th June 2009 is quashed and set aside. Notice of motion no.564 of 2009 is remanded to the trial court for a fresh hearing. iii)The trial court will hear the parties and will pass an order on the notice of motion in accordance with law. iv)All contentions of the parties on merits of the said notice of motion are expressly kept open. v) Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms. JUDGE