FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.7530 OF 2007 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders. coram, appearances, Court’s orders : or directions and Registrar’s : orders. : ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Mr Prakash Shah, for the petitioner. Mr V.A.Thorat with P.J.Thorat, Ms Manisha Virkhare & Mr S.Suryawanshi i/b M/s Vigil Juris for the respondents. CORAM: D.B.Bhosale,J. DATED: 15.02.2008 P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay, by which he has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 5.4.2007 passed in Interim Notice No.164 of 2006 on merits so also on the ground that the revision is not maintainable. The Interim Notice was taken out by the petitioner seeking inspection of the three documents, as mentioned in its prayer clause. Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that all the three documents are altogether different from the documents which are produced on record by the plaintiffs and inspection of these documents would be necessary for dismissal of the suit as not maintainable. I perused both the orders and more particularly the order passed by the trial court. To my mind, the Court has rightly declined to accept the request made in the application for the reasons recorded in the impugned orders. That apart, even looking to the stage at which the application was made and considering the provisions contained in Rule 15, Order XI of CPC, in my opinion, the impugned order, being discretionary in character, deserves no interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Supervisory jurisdiction is normally exercised in the cases where error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Such is not the case in the instant proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, dismissal shall not preclude the petitioner in challenging this order in appeal after disposal of the suit, if so advised. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)