1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6576 OF 2008 Shri.Vaidyanath Sahakari Grahnirman Sanstha Maryadit, Jalna, Through its Chairman, Sadanand Deoappa Longaonkar, PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Haribhau Bapurao Surange R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Ramnagar Jalna 2. Chandabai Prabhakar Kanthale, R/o Burhan Nagar, Ramnagar Jalna 3. Mahadeorao Rangnathrao Suradkar R/o Burhan Nagar, Ramnagar Jalna RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.B.R.Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Nirkhee, Advocate for respondent No.1 None for respondent No.2, though served. Mr.D.R.Irale Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 11th June 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present writ petition, filed under Article 227 of 2 the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the disputant in dispute No. ACR/100/94, pending before the Judge, Cooperative Court, Aurangabad has challenged the order dated 08.05.2008 passed by the Cooperative Appellate Court, in Revision Application No.05/2007. 2. The facts, which gave rise to file the present writ petition, indicate that in the year 1994, the petitioner filed a Dispute in respect of declaration of the suit property and injunction against the respondent, in the Cooperative Court Aurangabad. After pleadings were completed and issues were framed, the dispute came up for hearing i.e. recording of evidence of the parties. After examination-in-chief of the disputant / petitioner was over, before commencement of the cross examination of the witnesses of the petitioner, an application was moved on 03.02.2007 on behalf of respondent No.1 for production of documents and seeking time to produce the documents and produced a list of all the documents, which he intended to refer to the witnesses in the cross examination. Advocate of the petitioner objected the said production of the documents. However, vide order dated 18.10.2007 below Exhibit-32, production of the documents was allowed. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Revision Petition No.05/2007 before the Cooperative Appellate Court. The Member, Cooperative Appellate Court, in concurrence of the judgment of the trial court, dismissed the 3 revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. 3. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present writ petition is filed by the disputant. The Civil Procedure Code contemplates three stages in respect of production of documents and reference of documents. A document, on which plaintiff / appellant / applicant / disputant relies, is to be produced along with plaint under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. At the same time, the opponent / defendant / respondent to produce documents on which he intends to rely along with the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Other than these two provisions, there is third provision under Order 13 of the Civil Procedure Code of which Rule 3 (b) speaks for documents to be referred in cross examination of a witness, which were not required to be produced along with the pleadings, as required under Order 7 Rule 14 or Order 8 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, which is an exception to the production of documents under earlier two provisions. In the order passed by the Member, Cooperative Appellate Court, in para 8 it is observed in respect of purview and interpretation of Order 13 Rule 2 as well as Rule 3 (b) of the Civil Procedure Code. If these documents to be referred in the cross examination of a witness of a plaintiff then there is no substance in the arguments of learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that as the documents were not 4 produced along with the written statement, as required under Order 8 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, both the lower courts ought to have rejected the application for production of documents. However, these submission are correctly turned down by both the courts below. In the premise, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and hence required to be dismissed at the stage of admission only. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed in liminie. 4. After the dictation of the order is over, learned advocate for the petitioner requested for directions to expedite the dispute pending before the trial Court, as the same is of the year 1994. There is substance in this submission. In the premise, the Cooperative Court, Aurangabad is hereby directed to dispose of the Dispute No.100/1994 as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 31st December 2009. The petitioner as well as the respondents to instruct their respective advocates in the trial court to follow this direction scrupulously. The Judge, Cooperative Court, Aurangabad is hereby directed not to give liberal adjournments to the parties without any unavoidable circumstance and to see that the matter is disposed of within the time stipulated. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/wp6576-08