IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1747 OF 2008 Tata Sons Ltd. .... Petitioner V/s. Estate Officer, Central Bank of India & Ors. .....Respondents Mr.Simil Purohit i/b M/s.I.R.Joshi & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr.R.L.Shethia, for respondent No.2. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 27th AUGUST, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged an interlocutory order passed by Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. During the pendency of the said proceedings, on behalf of the present petitioner an application dated 29-02-2008 was submitted asking the original applicant to produce certain documents, a reference of which was made in the cross- examination by the witness. The concerned Officer rejected the said application by an order dated 13-06-2008, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that during the 2 course of the cross-examination of the witness of the respondent-bank, a witness made reference to certain documents and the applicant may be directed to produce such documents. The prayer for production of the documents has been rejected by the concerned Officer. The learned Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that since the document has been referred by the witness in the cross-examination, the authority should have allowed the application of the petitioner by asking the other side to produce the documents. 3. The present petition is filed at an interlocutory stage and the proceedings are at large before the Estate Officer and this Court would not like to intercept further proceedings at this stage. However, ultimately if the final order is against the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to take such point in appeal if required to be filed against such an order. No case is made out for interference with the impugned order at such an interlocutory stage. This Court would not like to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order. We do not find any substance in the petition. The petition therefore, stands dismissed, subject to liberty as aforesaid to the petitioner. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )