1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1468 OF 2010 Jaya Shetty Petitioner versus The Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay & another Respondents Rajesh Dixit i/by V.R.Tripathi & Associates for petitioner. M.M.Malvankar for BMC respondent no.1. V.Y.Sanglikar for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15th April 2010 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and learned counsel for the second respondent. By the impugned order, the prayer made by the petitioner for issuing witness summons to Municipal Engineer and an officer of the Fire Brigade Department of the first respondent Municipal Corporation has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel for the first respondent, on instructions of Mr.Vinod H.Bhatkar, Junior Engineer – B & F, G.C.S.Ward states that the documents which are mentioned in notice to produce issued by the advocate for the petitioner to the first respondent (Exhibit-B to the petition) are not traceable with the first respondent. 2 3. In the circumstances, as of today, no purpose will be served by issuing witness summons as prayed in the petition. Therefore, at this stage, no interference is called for with the impugned order inasmuch as the witness summons was essentially prayed for production of the said documents. The statement of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the documents are not available on the record of the first respondent Municipal Corporation is accepted. No case for interference is made out. However, it will be open for the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings for leading secondary evidence of the said documents. It is, however, made clear that the issue regarding relevancy of the said documents is kept open. The writ petition is rejected accordingly. (A.S.OKA, J.)