1 WP 6784/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6784 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Y.J. John i/b Ajay Law Associates for the petitioners. Mr. Abdul Rab for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 14TH DECEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. While the evidence of defendants’ witness no.1 was being recorded, the defendants sought to produce certain documents, the production and exhibiting of which was objected to by the plaintiff. The objection was upheld with respect to certain documents while other documents are allowed to be produced. Aggrieved by the order of the Court declining permission to the petitioners (defendants) to produce the 2 WP 6784/10 documents and exhibit them in evidence, they have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The impugned order is purely procedural and does not call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Entertaining a writ, admitting it and then staying the suit which would remain pending for years would serve no purpose. In the case of Albina v. Kelwyn, 2010 (5) M.L.J. 351, this Court has already held that interference at such interlocutory stage by entertaining a writ petition against every interim/interlocutory order is to be avoided. 4. For these reasons, the writ petition is rejected summarily. Needless to say that the petitioners have liberty to challenge the impugned order if the final decision in the suit is adverse to the petitioners. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)