1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6707 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.6708 OF 2009 Ganapati Pandurang Shintre & Anr. ...Petitioners (in both petitions) vs. M/s.Kalyani Steels Limited ...Respondent (in both petitions) Mr.Nitin Bhutekar i/b Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for the petitioners Mr.Tejas Deshpande for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 2, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners in the Writ Petition no.6707 of 2009 are the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.1480 of 1992 filed against the respondent. The respondent is the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit no.1269 of 1992 to which the petitioners are the defendants. In both the suits, the petitioners made an application directing the respondent to produce certain documents. It appears that the said application was allowed and by order dated 8th July 2003 the respondent was directed to produce documents at serial nos.7 and 10. The said documents were not produced. Therefore, in both the suits, further applications were made by the petitioners. In Suit no.1480 of 1992, the petitioners made an application for striking out defence of the respondent on account of non production of the said documents. In Suit No.1269 of 1992, a prayer was 2 made by the petitioners for dismissing the suit on account of failure of the respondent to produce documents. In the suit filed by the petitioners, an application was made by the respondents for proceeding further in the suit. Similar application was made by the respondent in the suit filed by the respondent to which the petitioners are the defendants. The applications made by the petitioners were rejected and the applications made by the respondent to proceed with the suit have been allowed and therefore, there are two petitions filed for challenging the order passed in the two cross suits. 2 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the orders dated 8th July 2003 have attained finality as the same are not challenged by the respondents. He, therefore, submitted that there was no option but to take further steps against the respondent for non compliance of the said order. He submitted that in the suit in which the respondent is the defendant, the defence of the respondent ought to have been struck out and in the suit in which the respondent is a plaintiff, the suit ought to have been dismissed. He submitted that instead of taking action against the respondent, the trial Court has directed the suits to proceed. 3 Perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court shows that the case made out that the respondent is not in a possession of the documents at item nos.7 and 10 has been accepted. The trial Court has passed a discretionary order by declining to take action against the respondent on account of alleged non-compliance with orders dated 8th July 2003. In writ jurisdiction, no interference can be made with the said orders. As a logical consequence of the impugned orders, the suits 3 have been directed to proceed. If according to the petitioners the respondent is still in possession of the said documents, petitioners can always contend that the adverse inference be drawn against the respondent for non production of the said documents. 4 Subject to what is observed above, no interference can be made. Writ Petitions are rejected. JUDGE