WP/8445/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8445 OF 2010 Dhirajlal Raishi Chheda ... Petitioner V/s. Raishi Shivji Chheda ... Respondent Mr.Induprakash Tripathi i/b M/s.Sarwankar & Co. for Petitioner Mr.J.Shukla for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 29, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order passed by the Small Causes Court dismissing exhibit 95. Exhibit 95 is an application filed by the petitioner who is the plaintiff before the court for receiving certain documents or production of documents on record. This application was filed on 7.4.2010. The documents which were sought to be produced were listed in a schedule annexed to the application. These included 7 English translations of Gujarati documents which were already on record and 10 other documents. A similar application had been made for production of certain documents by exhibit 93 which was refused by the Small Causes Court. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.7049 of 2010. I had allowed that writ petition on 18.10.2010. Before exhibit 93 was rejected, the petitioner also filed exhibits 94 and 95. The application at exhibit 94 was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to file WP/8445/2010 : 2 : additional affidavit of examination in chief within three days. It appears that alongwith this additional affidavit of examination in chief which was filed on 5.8.2010, the petitioner filed a list of documents on which he would rely and the documents as well. These documents included the 10 documents which are mentioned in exhibit 95. 2. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that there is no reason not to allow translations. Mr.Shukla, appearing for the respondents, has no objection to the translations being taken on record. 3. With respect to the 10 other documents, in my opinion, the Small Causes Court was not correct in refusing to consider whether those documents should be allowed to be produced merely by observing that since exhibit 93 had been rejected by the court the documents contained in exhibit 95 could not be received in evidence under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. After hearing the parties at length in my opinion, the following order will meet the ends of justice: i) The impugned order passed on exhibit 95 is set aside. ii) The English translations of the Gujarati documents shall be taken on record. iii) Exhibit 95 with respect to 10 remaining documents and the say filed by the respondents on the documents produced with the affidavit in evidence i.e. WP/8445/2010 : 3 : on 5.8.2010 shall be considered and decided together by the Small Causes Court. iv) If the respondents have not filed a say as yet in respect of the documents produced alongwith the affidavit of evidence, the say shall be filed within two weeks from today. v) As already mentioned both the say as well as the exhibit 95 will be heard together. 1. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.