1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2279 OF 2008 Chandwani Transport Petitioner versus M/s.Bhupal Jayawant Desai and Sons and others Respondents A.B.Borkar for petitioner. Surel S. Shah for respondents 1 to 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th July 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The respondent nos.1 to 3 are the original plaintiffs and the petitioner is one of the defendants. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 1st February 2008 by which the first to third respondents (original plaintiffs) were permitted to produce the alleged Deed of Partnership dated 9th November 1961 of the first respondent firm. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the existence of the said document was not referred to in the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the respondents. He pointed out that the application for production of documents was made after conclusion of recording of evidence and at the stage when final arguments in the suit were over. He submitted that in the application made by the first to third respondents, no reasons were assigned for delay in production of the said document. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the first to third respondents stated that the original document which is allowed to be produced by the impugned order was produced in two suits filed in the Court at Belgaum and the said document was exhibited in the said two suits. He has invited 2 my attention to the assertions made in the affidavit in lieu of examination- in-chief of second respondent. He submitted that no interference is called for. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner states that if the first to third respondents make a statement that they will not lead any additional evidence, the petitioner may not raise any objection for production of the said document. Learned counsel for respondents nos.1 to 3 states that they want to examine one witness to prove the said document. 5. It is true that the document has been produced by the first to third respondents belatedly when oral arguments were heard in the said suit. The assertion made by the first to third respondents is that the said document dated 9th November 1961 was been produced in two suits in Belgaum Court. In the evidence of the second respondent (second plaintiff), he has stated that the first respondent-firm is in existence from 1961. He has disclosed as to who were the partners of the said firm at that time. A subsequent partnership deed re-constituting the said firm executed in 1963 has been produced. Therefore, at least at the time of recording of evidence, the plaintiffs have come out with the case that the partnership was in existence in the year 1961. Considering the controversy involved in the suit, it is very difficult to find fault with the discretionary order passed by the Trial Court. 6. As of today there is no order passed by the Trial Court permitting the original plaintiffs to lead any further evidence. Hence, it is not necessary to consider the concession made by the counsel for the petitioner. Subject to what is observed above, the writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)