1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7944 OF 2009 Shri Bhupal Shankar Khot. .. Petitioner VS The General Manager, MSRTC, Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri S.G. Thorat for the Petitioner. Shri G.S. Hegade i/by Shri G.S. Hegade & Associates for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, who is the original Claimant in a Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Petitioner/Claimant made an application before the Tribunal for production of documents. The Application made was for permission to produce 50 documents which were tendered along with the application. By the impugned order dated 24th July, 2009, the Tribunal has permitted production of only 5 documents at Sr.Nos.46 to 50. The second order under challenge in this Petition is of the same date i.e. 24th July, 2009 by which the application for amendment to the Claim Petition has been partly allowed. 2 2. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent, I find that the Tribunal ought to have permitted the Petitioner to produce all 50 documents. By the said application, only production of documents was sought. Even if the documents are allowed to be produced, the Petitioner will have to prove the said documents. 3. As far as the amendment to the Claim Petition is concerned, except the text of the amendment in Clause (G) of the application for amendment to the Claim Petition, rest of the amendments have been permitted. By Clause (G), the Petitioner wants to incorporate subsequent events relating to the treatment undergone by him and the fact that he may be required to take treatment for a period of two years. The Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, has observed that as far as the assertions made in Clause (G) are concerned, the Petitioner can lead evidence. Therefore, it is obvious that the Tribunal has permitted the Petitioner to lead evidence on the factual aspects set out in Clause (G) and therefore, no interference is called for as far as the order on the application for amendment to the Claim Petition is concerned. Hence, the Petition is disposed of by passing following order. (a) The order dated 24th July, 2009 passed by the Tribunal on application at Exhibit – 27 is modified and the Petitioner is granted permission to produce all 50 3 documents forming part of the list of documents already on record. (b) Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out with the order passed on the application for amendment to the Claim Petition. (A.S.OKA, J) ash