1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11426 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11426 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Shri Dhorde for Petitioner, Advocate Shri Shirsat for Respondents. In a suit instituted in 1989, after closure of evidence of all parties and at the stage of final hearing Respondent/ plaintiff sought leave to produce certain copies of some public documents. Reason given was, the documents could not be received within time. The trial Court has accepted that reason, found documents relevant and, therefore, imposed costs and permitted the Respondent/ plaintiff to produce the documents. The Respondent / defendant is permitted to cross examine the plaintiff or his witness or to lead evidence in view of those documents coming on record. 2. Contention that the documents being public documents were well within the knowledge of the Respondent and still he 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11426 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. chose to close the evidence without reserving any liberty. It is also urged that provision of law under which the application is filed is also not disclosed. Trial Court has applied its mind to facts before it, found documents relevant and has seen to it that no prejudice is caused to the Petitioner/ defendant. As I do not notice any jurisdictional error or perversity, the petition is rejected. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:14/02/2011. ans/11426