1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8772 OF 2009 Rajendra Laxman Bhosale .. Petitioner. Vs. Shriram Baburao Sonawane & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.B.D.Joshi for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for respondent no.1. Mr.A.B.Vagyani A.G.P. for respondent nos.4 and 6. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 26.8.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. The order dated 26.8.2009 reads thus: “This matter has been dealt with in totality by the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 21.2.2009 in W.P.No.29/2008. The Hon’ble High Court have allowed the Election Petition to file the report of the S.D.O. Dated 2.9.2006. In view of this request of the election Petition dated 21.1.2009 is granted and the report of the S.D.O. is allowed to be taken on record. The arguments regarding provisions, etc. under which the applicant is filing the said document will be heard at the time of final judgment. This issue of non filing of the copy till 21.1.2009 is now infructuous, because of the 2 Hon’ble High Court. Hence, this objection stands rejected.” 3. Mr.Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent no.1, on instructions, submits that the Divisional Commissioner has simply allowed production of the document and the Commissioner has taken it on record. Insofar as the question, whether the said document, i.e. the order dated 2.9.2006 passed by the S.D.O., is to be read in evidence or not, has not been considered by the commissioner. I have perused the following observations made by this court in order dated 15.2.2008 in writ petition No.29 of 2008: “.... .... .... .... .... .... interest of justice would be sub- served, if an opportunity is given to the original election Petitoner/Writ Petition before me to substantitate his allegations in the election petition by bringing on record the said order of the S.D.O., if already not on record of the election petition, in accordance with law. At that stage, it would be open for the returned candidate (Respondent No.1) to urge that the said order of the S.D.O. cannot be brought on record of the election dispute, inasmuch as, that has no bearing with regard to the eligibility of the first respondent to contest the subject election. However, it would be open for him to oppose the said document being brought on record and when the matter is being retried by the Divisional 3 Commissioner, he shall address himself on the merits and demerits of these pleas and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, either allowing the request of the present Petitioner to being the documents on record and read the same in evidence or reject the said request by upholding the rejection of returned candidate.” 4. After having perused the observations made by the court in the aforesaid order so also the impugned order and submissions of Mr.Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent no.1, I am satisfied that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by merely allowing production of the order dated 2.9.2006 on record. It is clear that this document has not been admitted in evidence so far. In the circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. All contentions of the parties are kept open including the contentions raised in the application dated 21.1.2009 (Exhibit “B” to the petition) to be considered by the Commissioner at appropriate stage. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)