rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3206 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3206 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3206 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT NO. 1861 OF 2002 SUIT NO. 1861 OF 2002 SUIT NO. 1861 OF 2002 Raishi Shivaji Chheda & Ors ..Plaintiffs V/s. Dhirajlal Raishi Chheda & Ors. ..Defendants Mr.J.G.Shukla for Plaintiffs. Mr.A.V.Anturkar a/w.Mr.P.A.Sarvankar i/b.G.S.Bhat for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and in support of Notice of Motion No. 4507 of 2006. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR J. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR J. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR J. DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY,2008. DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY,2008. DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : . By this Notice of Motion the Plaintiffs have sought various reliefs. However, the arguments were confined to only prayer (b) of the Notice of Motion. 2. In prayer (b) the Plaintiff has sought an order directing the first Defendant to deposit Exhibit Nos. 35(a), 36, 37, 43(a), 44, 49, 27(a), 45(a) and 46(a) to the written statement-cum-counter claim filed by the first Defendant. The Plaintiff has also sought an order for forwarding the family settlement dated 25th June, 1993 and two M.O.Us of : 2 : lease also dated 25th June, 1993 to the Superintendent of Stamp etc., for scrutinizing the genuiness thereof. 3. I do not see how this application can be rejected. The averments are annexed to the written statement. The Plaintiffs have seriously disputed the genuineness thereof. All that the Plaintiffs desire in inspection of the documents and the examination of one of the documents by the competent authority. The report of the Indian Security Press will greatly assist the determination by this Court of these questions. I would have thought that the Defendants would have wrongly agreed to the same to exhibit their bonafider. 4. Mr.Anturkar stated that Exhibit Nos. 35(a), 36, 37, 44 and 48(a) have been deposited in the Small Causes Court in Suit No.258 of 2004. In the circumstances, no orders in respect of these documents is called for at this stage. The parties shall not withdraw the said documents from the said proceedings in the Small Causes Court without the leave of this Court. It is clarified that the parties however shall be at liberty to apply to the : 3 : Small Cause Court for all other purposes in respect of the said documents. 5. The remaining documents namely Exhibit Nos. 43(a), 49, 27 (a) and 46 (a) are in the custody of Defendant No.1. Mr. Anturkar on behalf of Defendant No.1 states that Defendant No.1 is not agreeable to the documents being deposited in Court. He stated that a similar relief was prayed for in Notice of Motion No. 1485 of 2002 which was rejected by an order dated 2nd July, 2004. On behalf of the Plaintiff’s, it was stated that the prayer in that regard was not pressed at that stage. From the order, however, it is not clear that the prayer was not pressed. No application for clarification has been made. 6. However, the Plaintiffs are at liberty to take inspection of the said documents in the office of the Defendant’s advocate alongwith the assistance of their hand-writing experts, if they so desire. The inspection shall be carried out only in the presence of the parties and/or their representatives. 7. There is a dispute as to in whose custody the family settlement dated 25th June, 2003 is. : 4 : Mr.Anturkar states that the Defendants have only a copy thereof certified by a Notory. The Small Cause Court is requested to forward the same namely the family settlement dated 25th June, 1993 to the Superintendent of Stamps, General Stamp office at Mumbai, General Manager, Indian Security Press, Nashik. The Indian Security Press is requested to scrutinize the said documents and to verify whether the stamp papers or the Notorial Stamp affixed theron are genuine. The report should also state whether the stamp purported to have been used could have been in existance on the date on which they are stated to be affixed. 8. The report shall be submitted subject to the Plaintiffs first paying the costs if any of the Indian Security Press within two weeks from today. The Indian Security Press is requested to forward its report within eight weeks from today. The Indian Security Press shall be at liberty for the aforesaid purpose to direct the parties to furnish copies of any other documents including the two M.O.Us dated 25th June, 1993 referred to in prayer (b) of the Notice of Motion. In the event of the Indian Security Press requiring the said M.O.Us dated 25th June, 1993, they shall inform the parties about the : 5 : same, who shall thereupon make an application to the Small Cause Court for forwarding the documents to the Indian Security Press at Nashik. 9. For the purpose of this suit, the parties shall be permitted by the Small Cause Court to take inspection of the documents referred to in prayer (b) alongwith their hand-writing experts, if they so desire. Such inspection shall be carried out only in the presence of an officer of the Small Cause Court and in the presence of all the parties. 10. The operation of the order is stayed for a period of 8 weeks. *******