FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4845/2009 [Narayan Govindrao Jajodiya ..vs.. Shivprasad Jajodia through L.Rs.] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, advocate for petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 13, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner impugns two separate orders passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wardha, one on 5.8.2009 and the other on 7.9.2009. By the first order dated 5.8.2009, the trial court had rejected the application filed by the petitioner for production of documents. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. He had already filed a plaint map along with the plaint. During the pendency of the trial, he wanted to file another plaint map on record which was identical one. There was no pleading about this map in the plaint and an identical map was already on record. The trial court therefore, rightly rejected the application for production of documents by the impugned order dated 5.8.2009. There is no error whatsoever in the order passed by the trial court on 5.8.2009 and the said order does not call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction. Similarly the order dated 7.9.2009 is also just and proper as the perusal of the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint clearly shows that the proposed amendment was not necessary for effectively deciding the matter between the parties. The trial court had rejected the application for filing the document by order dated 5.8.2009 and by filing an amendment application, the petitioner was trying to overcome the order passed by the trial court on 5.8.2009. The trial court therefore, held that there was no point in allowing the application as the plaint map was already available on record and there was a pleading about the plaint map in the original plaint. The court held that it was not necessary to repeat the same pleadings again to introduce the same map which was tried to be produced on record by an application which was rejected by the order dated 5.8.2009. The trial court rightly rejected the application by the impugned order dated 7.9.2009. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP