1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 539 OF 2009 Smt. Chanda Samarth Patil . ....vrs... Santosh Samarth Patil and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 24 th APRIL, 2009 Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By the instant petition, the petitioners have impugned the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur on 28.11.2008 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for production of documents. The petitioners are the original non- applicant nos. 3 and 4 in Probate proceedings initiated by the respondent nos. 1 to 4. It is not in dispute that the evidence on the side of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 was tendered and the evidence was closed on their side. Thereafter one of the petitioner was examined. At that stage, an application was filed by the petitioners for permission to produce documents. It was stated in 2 the application that during the cross examination of one of the petitioner, the counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 had asked the petitioners whether there were any documents pertaining to medical treatment. In this background it is the case of the petitioners that some search was made in the house and during that search it was found that certain relevant documents pertaining to the medical treatment of the deceased as well as service record were not filed. In this background, the petitioners sought permission to file the documents on record. The application filed by the petitioners was strongly opposed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4. According to the respondent nos. 1 to 4, it was not stated by the petitioners in the application as to why the documents were not produced by the petitioners at the earlier stage of the proceedings. Since no bonafide reason was stated by the petitioners in the application for production of documents, the respondent nos. 1 to 4 sought for the dismissal of the application with costs. The 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur on hearing the learned counsel for the parties by the impugned order dt. 28.11.2008 rejected the application filed by the petitioners. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the 3 impugned order dated 28.11.2008. It is clear from a perusal of the written statement, application filed by the petitioners for production of the documents as also the impugned order dated 28.11.2008 that the trial Court committed no error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners, by the impugned order. The only reason stated in the application for seeking production of the document was that the petitioners made a search in their house after a query was made to one of the petitioners during her cross examination, as to whether she had any documents pertaining to the medical treatment of the deceased. The court observed that the reasons stated in the application for seeking production of documents was not worthy of acceptance. In case the prayer made in the application was granted, grave and severe prejudice to other side would be caused. The trial Court observed that on a perusal of the application it was clear that the documents were in possession of the petitioners and this clearly show that the petitioners would have tendered the documents before the court, had the petitioners been diligent in prosecuting the matter before the trial Court. Since the evidence on the side of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 was already closed and since the documents wee of such a nature that the production of which would cause severe prejudice to 4 the respondent nos. 1 to 4, had they been permitted to produce at the stage of tendering of evidence of petitioners, the trial Court rejected the application by the impugned order dated 28.11.2008. The judgments reported at 1994 [2] CCC 681 and 1997 [3] CLJ 716, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case and cannot be of any assistance to the case of the petitioners, as in the reported decision the courts have observed that the trial Court must be liberal in permitting the parties to adduce the evidence, in case the parties fail to produce the documents for reasons beyond their control or for want of knowledge about the same. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd