WP. 4889-91 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 4889 OF 1991 Bijendra Kumar Jain & Anr. ... Petitioners Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma ... Respondent *** Mr. Prafulla Shah, for the Petitioners. Mr. M. P. Vashi i/b M/s. M. P. Vashi & Associates, for Respondent No.1. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : AUGUST 8, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Competent Authority which has permitted the respondent No. 1 herein to produce on record additional documents by filing additional affidavit in lieu of evidence. It is submitted that documents which are sought to be relied upon by the respondent No. 1 are totally irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy in issue. It is submitted WP. 4889-91 - 2 - that this application is filed only for the purpose of prolonging and protracting the trial. It is submitted that initially the matter was filed in the year 1989 and the matter has been prolonged for one reason or the other. Reliance is placed on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram : D. K. Deshmukh, J.] in the case of - Vijay kumar Agarwal Vs. Kamlesh Kundu, passed in Civil Revision Application No. 958 of 1996 dated 13th February, 1997. It is submitted that in the said judgment it has been observed that for the purpose of deciding application under S. 13A(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 the accommodation which is acquired by the owner is not relevant for deciding jurisdiction of the competent court. It is submitted that therefore, the document, namely, alleged acquisition of flat by the petitioner in Navi Mumbai, is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the dispute. 2. In my view, the said submission cannot be accepted. It is an admitted position that respondent is being cross-examined and his cross-examination is not yet over and under the circumstances by giving cogent reasons, the Competent Authority has permitted the petitioner to bring those documents on record after proving them in accordance with law. In my view, it is an interlocutory order and while WP. 4889-91 - 3 - exercising jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, it will not be possible to interfere with the said impugned order. However, taking into consideration the fact that case is pending since 1989, the Competent Authority is directed to decide the application, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today. [ V. M. KANADE, J.]