1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1530/2010 ( Shri Digambar S/o Urkuda Nimje ..VERSUS.. Shri Dejraj S/o Ramkrushna Chouragade & others ) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri R.A. Gupte, Adv. for petitioner. Shri S.K. Pardhy, Adv. for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 13, 2010. Heard Adv. Shri Gupte for petitioner and Adv. Shri Pardhy for respondent nos.1 and 2. The order sheet of Trial Court dated 30/11/2009 prima facie shows that application at Exh.48 appears to have been added to it later on. However, it is not necessary to go into this aspect because there can be a genuine omission and that omission can be corrected later on. The facts however, show that documents have been taken on record at the stage of cross examination of defendant and without any opportunity to petitioner/plaintiff. Adv. Shri Pardhy has contended that on same day case was fixed for affidavit in examination-in-chief of defendant's witness and along with the affidavit of 2 that witness documents in question came to be filed. His contention is that copies of documents were already on record of Trial Court and hence no new document as such was filed. Adv. Shri Gupte is disputing this position. The application placed on record as annexures of petition vide Annexure V shows that the prayer in application (Exh.48) was to permit defendant to produce the documents. The application nowhere states that the documents were being filed as part of affidavit of witness for defendant. The application also does not state that it's copies are already on record and without calling any say of petitioner/plaintiff of one word, application has been allowed. No reasons whatsoever are recorded. Adv. Shri Pardhy has invited attention of this Court to provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code and a reported judgment to urge that such production is permissible. Again, I find that these provisions are not invoked by respondent/defendant before Trial Court and the order of Trial Court also does not show any application of mind under those provisions. The order of Trial Court has to stand on its on legs and cannot be justified by the parties by pointing out any material not looked into. In this view of matter the said order granting 3 permission to file the documents on record is hereby quashed and set aside. Application Exh.48 filed by respondent is restored back to Trial Court. The Trial Court to call upon petitioner to give his say and extend to him an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter shall pass an appropriate order in the matter. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.