1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6598 OF 2009 Mrs.Charu K.Mehta .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. The Joint Charity Commissioner Greater Bombay Region, Mumbai .. 2. Chetan Prabodh Mehta .. 3. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Pranav Badheka with Mr.Rohan Kelkar i/b Mr.Hetal Thakore and Mr.Rizvi Nasir of M/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the petitioner. Mr.Chandar Uday Singh, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Prateek Seksaria, Mr.Diresndra Sinha, Mr.Thomas T.K. & Mr.Ashwin Sakolkar i/b Paras Kuhad & Associates for respondent no.2. Mr.P.P.Kakade A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 3. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 4TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. . Heard Mr.Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.U.Singh, learned senior counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr.Kakade, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 3. 2. This writ petition impugns an order dated 28.7.2009 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner disposing of the 2 petitioner’s application at Exhibit-44 by the following order: “Application Ex.44 by the respondent to direct the applicant to give inspection of the documents. Annexure Ex.2, is the list of the documents of which the respondent seeks inspection. Read application. Heard both sides. Advocate, Shri Inamdar orally submitted that most of the documents are not in possession of the applicant. It is also submitted that some of the documents are in possession of the resopndent. The applicant to explain in writing about this. Alongwith application Ex.44, Annexure (Ex.1), the list of the documents is given of which the respondent seeks inspection. It is submitted that these are the documents filed by the applicant under application Ex.38 on 6.7.09. It is submitted that the respondent wants inspection of these documents to file additional reply. On last occasion, last chance was given to the respondent to file additional reply. Till today additional reply is not filed. The record shows that on 6.7.2009, when application Ex.38 was moved the respondent was directed to give say on this application. Till today, no say was given. Today for the first time, it is contended that inspection of those documents is required for filing the reply. The explanation is not acceptable. It is not explained why application Ex.38 was not contested and 3 why till today, inspection of those documents was not sought. It is not necessary to wait till inspection to file the additional reply. Request for inspection of the documents as per list Ex.1 will be considered separately at later stage. Despite sufficient opportunity given, the respondent failed to file additional reply. The application to proceed without additional reply. Purshis Ex.45 is filed by the applicant that the applicant is ready to give inspection of the documents at serial nos.2 to 4 in Ex.1 today itself. By consent inspection will be taken on 29.7.2009. The time shall be fixed by the convenience of the parties.” 3. The application at Exhibit-44 was made by the petitioner seeking inspection of the documents in the list at Exhibit-2. Mr.Singh, learned senior counsel for respondent no.2 submits that respondent no.2 is not relying upon the documents at serial nos.4 and 15 in the list (Exhibit-2) and, therefore, he has instructions to state that respondent no.2 shall not give inspection of these two documents at this stage of proceedings. Insofar as remaining documents are concerned, he submits that respondent no.2 is not having originals of the documents at serial no.1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13 and 14, and, according to him, these documents are relied by the petitioner in the first appeal. He further submits that respondent no.2 is 4 also not having originals of the documents at serial nos.2, 7, 8, 9 and 10, and, therefore, question of giving inspection does not arise. He submits that photo-copies of all these documents are already furnished to the petitioner. This statement of Mr.Singh has not been disputed by Mr.Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Keeping that in view and having considered the submissions of learned senior counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice: The question of giving inspection of the documents in the list at Exhibit-1, does not arise. An additional reply, which the petitioner intends to file, may be filed within a period of two weeks from today with an advance copy thereof to the advocate on record for respondent no.2. It is needless to state that if the additional reply is not filed by the petitioner within the time stipulated, the Charity Commissioner may proceed in absence thereof. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)