1 (WP 1720 & 1739 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1720 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1739 OF 2011 Jamadar Mohammed Sultan ...Petitioner Vs. Karamshi Manshi ...Respondent ----- Mr.Asif I. Patel for Petitioner Mr.D.S. Sabnis for Respondent ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 17th June, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is the Original Plaintiff and the Respondent is the Original Defendant (for the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as the “Plaintiff and the Defendant”). 3. Brief facts are as follows: The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. After the issues were framed, he filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence. Thereafter, he was cross examined by the Defendant’s 2 (WP 1720 & 1739 of 2011) advocate. During the course of cross-examination, the Defendant’s advocate asked him whether he can produce the receipt in respect of the consideration paid by him to the earlier landlord and secondly, whether he could produce the receipts in respect of municipal taxes which were paid by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff gave a reply that he would be in a position to produce these documents, the matter thereafter was adjourned. On the next date, the Plaintiff was ready to produce the said documents since he had produce those documents in a separate file. However, the Defendant’s advocate did not call upon the Plaintiff to produce the said documents. The Plaintiff, therefore, first filed an application requesting the Court to take the said documents on record. The Defendant filed his reply and it was submitted that the Defendant in cross examination had not called upon the Plaintiff to produce the said documents and, therefore, the Court could not pass an order for production of the said documents. The Trial Court rejected the said application. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed another application seeking leave of the Court to file additional affidavit in lieu of evidence for the purpose of production of these documents. This application was also rejected by the Trial Court and, therefore, being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the Petitioner has filed these two 3 (WP 1720 & 1739 of 2011) petitions. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Trial Court ought to have permitted him to filed an additional affidavit in lieu of evidence to bring the said documents on record. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has invited my attention to both the impugned orders and has submitted that in the interest of justice, his application ought to have been granted. 5. In my view, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below since the Plaintiff has a right to seek clarification of the questions which are asked in the cross-examination by the Defendant’s counsel in re-examination and bring those documents on record. Alternatively, he can examine another witness for the purpose of bringing these documents on record in accordance with law and bring them on record if such an application is made. Both the petitions are, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE J.)