1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R. WRIT PETITION NO. 1060 OF 2008 Vasantkumar s/o Marotrao Ingale, aged 74 years, Occupation : Pensioner, r/o E.W.S. Qr. No. 31, Somwaripeth, Nagpur. ... PETITIONER.  VERSUS - Jawaharlal Badluji Shahu, aged 64 years, Occupation : Liquor shop owner, r/o Azamshah Layout, PlotNo.538, New Anandnagar, Juni Shukarwari, Sakkardara Chowk, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENT. ..... Mr.D.B. Walthare Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M.B. Parate Advocate for Respondent. .,... CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. RESERVED ON : 04.07.2008. PRONOUNCED ON : 10.07.2008. J U D G M E N T : Rule. Rule heard forthwith by consent of 2 learned counsel for the parties. 2. Orders below Exs.33 & 34 dated 21.1.2008 and 31.1.2008 in Regular Civil Appeal No.280 of 2000 rejecting application for production of document of original sale-deed dated 27.2.1962 are under challenge in this petition. 3. Mr.Walthare, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that under the sale-deed dated 27.2.1962 Vasantkumar and Nanaji jointly purchased the suit property and the sale-deed was registered. Thereafter Nanaji relinquished his share from the suit property described in the sale-deed in favour of Bhaiyalal- plaintiff no.1 while Vasantkumar was plaintiff no.2 in the suit against the tenant Jawaharlal. As many as nine cases between the parties are pending in various courts described in para 15 of the application (Ex.33) and the plaintiffs filed xerox copy of the sale-deed in each proceedings, but the original sale-deed was not filed in the present suit as the petitioner was under the impression that the same would 3 be required in different suits. He then argued that the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs were not the landlords because the said original sale-deed was not produced on record. At the appellate stage, the plaintiffs realised their mistake and, therefore, they wanted to file the original sale-deed in order to prove their case and also to assist the Court for finding out the truth. According to Mr.Walthare, this constituted good ground for allowing the application, particularly when the document sought to be produced is a registered document of 1962. 4. Per contra, Mr.Parate, learned counsel for respondent, vehemently opposed the writ petition and argued that the original document of sale-deed was very much with the plaintiffs and they could have produced the same at the appropriate time before the trial Court and the case of the petitioners did not fall in any of the categories mentioned in Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, and at a late stage the document could not have been 4 allowed. He then argued pointing out the legal notice dated 8.6.1992 that Vasantkumar described himself as manager of Bhaiyasaheb and he accepted the position that he was not the owner of the suit property. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for rival parties, I find that the suit of the petitioner was dismissed only on the ground that the original sale-deed was not filed on record which clearly recites that Vasantkumar is the co- owner of the suit property. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that in the absence of concrete evidence regarding ownership, the dispute between landlord and tenant could not be tried by the Court of Small Causes. It is thus clear that had the original document of sale-deed been filed on record, this finding would not have been arrived at by the trial Court. This document is more than 38 years old and, therefore, certain presumption is attached to the said document. The argument canvassed by Mr.Parate about Vasantrao showing himself as manager 5 could be well put in defence. But in order to find out the truth and since the document would decide the litigation in a correct direction, I think it would be essential for the Court to have the same besides the fact that the plaintiffs can be allowed to prove their case. Hence, in my opinion, the application ought to have been allowed by the appellate court. In the result, I make the following order. 6. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders below Exs.33 and 34 are quashed and set aside. Application (Ex.34) for filing document of original sale-deed is allowed. The said document be taken on record. The appellate Court may now proceed with the appeal in accordance with law. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE /TA/ 6