IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 335 OF 2011 FLYING MAYA GUEST HOUSE PVT. LTD.,THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MS. MARIE CHRISTINE REBILLET PERDRIAU ... Petitioner Versus M/S. SHAM HOTELS PT. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. ESMAIL M. SHAM AND 9 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Korgaonkar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 9th November, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.1. 2. The above petition challenges order dated 4.9.2010 whereby the respondent no.1 was permitted to produce the plan depicting the alleged suit access claimed in the suit. 3. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued to contend that there are no pleadings in the plaint filed by respondent no.1 to the effect that the suit access is the one shown in the plan. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that merely producing the plan without any such pleadings is of no avail as it is well settled that evidence without pleadings have no value. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that learned judge while passing the impugned order has held that the application was for the production of the plan while on the contrary the said application was for the purpose of rectifying the defect in the plaint which is not permissible in law. 4. On the other side, Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel refers to para 8 of the plaint and put forward his contention that there was enough material in the plaint to specify the claim in the suit. According to learned Senior Counsel the application filed to produce the said document clearly specifies the reasons which force the respondent no.1 to file the application to produce the said document. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Court below while passing the impugned order and as such no interference is called for in the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. On perusal of the impugned order as well as the record particularly para no. 8 of the plaint, it is clearly stipulated therein that the access claimed by the respondent no.1 through the suit plot is indicated in the plan annexed with blue shading but however it appears that the respondent no.1 during the course of the arguments learnt that no particular colour was indicated as referred to above nor any access was shown therein. As such, considering the subsequent paras of the plaint, I find that the plan sought to be produced can be allowed to be produced as the plan was already annexed to the plaint. Any clarification to make it in consonance with original pleadings can be corrected by respondent no.1 by filing such application. In the present case, respondent no.1 is seeking to clarify the claim of their access through the property of the petitioners. 6. In any event the learned Judge has rightly found that the petitioners will have ample opportunity to dispute the correctness of the plan and/or reply opposing the alleged claim of the respondent no.1 and, as such, I find that no irreparable prejudice will occasion to the petitioners in case the respondent no.1 is permitted to produce the said plan. I find no patent error committed by learned judge while passing the impugned order. There is no merit in the above petition. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to file an additional written statement disputing the correctness of the plan produced by the respondent no.1. Subject to the above, the petition stands rejected. F. M. REIS, J. vn