1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6012 OF 2009 Nitinkumar Vasantrao Thakur Petitioner Versus Hariram Ramchandra Sarda & others Respondents Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Kudale, advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 25th March, 2010. P.C.: 1 The order dated 10.07.2009, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Majalgaon, below Exhibit-91 in R.C.S. No.20/2007, thereby rejecting the application tendered by defendant no.9 – petitioner herein, is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 It is the contention of defendant no.9 - petitioner that plaintiff was called upon to produce certain documents. On consideration of application, in that regard, trial Court issued direction to the plaintiff on 17.12.2008. It is alleged that plaintiff has not obeyed the order and failed to produce certain documents. Defendant no.9 – petitioner herein, therefore, requested the Court to take action against plaintiff and to dismiss suit in view of provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3 The application came to be rejected by the trial Court and in my opinion, rightly. Firstly, provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 11 are not applicable 2 to the facts and circumstances of this case. The documents requested by the defendant from plaintiff are in fact copies of certain orders passed by different authorities and Courts. Defendant can very well secure copies of concerned orders by tendering applications to the concerned authorities / Courts. Notice to produce certain documents, as contemplated under Order XI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be in respect of copies of judgments delivered by judicial or other authorities. It is not case of defendant that documents in question are exclusively in the custody of plaintiff. Considering nature of application presented by defendant earlier, even action, as contemplated by Order XI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be expected. Application presented by defendant no.9 – petitioner is misconceived and has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. 4 Writ Petition stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp601209