1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 3187/2007 (Dr. Ashok S/o Shaligram Kabra vs. Ramdas Shravan Patil ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. CORAM: Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED: 15 th JANUARY, 2008. *** Heard Shri S.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri M.I. Dhatrak, for Respondent- sole. 2. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Malkapur, on 28.6.2007 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction from the Court to the Superintendent of Police, Buldana to produce the original representation made by the respondent to the District Police Superintendent. 3. Few facts giving rise to the Petition are stated thus: According to the petitioner, Respondent had published a false and defamatory statement against the 2 petitioner/plaintiff in daily newspapers 'Dainik Darshan' and 'Dainik Deshonatti'. The petitioner had issued a legal notice to the respondent and demanded damages for defamation. Since the defendant did not tender any apology nor paid any damages to the petitioner, the petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suit No.3/2006 for damages to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh. The defendant filed his written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted the list of witnesses and the issues were framed. On 26.6.2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for production of document i.e. the representation which was made by the respondent before the District Superintendent of Police. The prayer made by the petitioner was strongly opposed by the respondent. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 28.6.2007 rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The said order is impugned in the present petition. 4. From perusal of the application, reply filed thereto and the impugned order passed by the ld. Joint Civil Judge, JD, Malkapur, it appears that the order passed by the trial Court is perfectly just and proper. The trial Court had rightly observed that in para no.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff/petitioner had pleaded that the defendant had not submitted any representation before the Superintendent of Police and he had, in fact, misled and 3 misguided the newspapers and the administration and hence the petitioner was not entitled to seek a direction against the Suptd. of Police to file the representation which was submitted by the defendant to the Dist. S.P. The Trial Court, therefore, rightly relied on the provisions of Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that the plaintiff was estopped from seeking the relief as sought by the application, at Exh.44. The Court further observed that it was conspicuous to note that the plaintiff by filing an application at Exh.21, had called the copy of the document from the representative of daily 'Deshonatti' on record and the same was submitted by the Editor of the newspaper, on record, after the application was allowed. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from any error whatsoever, much less jurisdictional error, so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it was necessary for the petitioner to examine the Dist. Suptd. Of Police to find out as to whether a requisition/ representation was ever submitted by the defendant to him and the Court, therefore, ought to have allowed the application. The prayer made in the application does not 4 disclose the aforesaid submission or request made on behalf of the petitioner. In fact, the prayer in Exh. 44 seeks a direction to the Dist.S.P. to produce the original requisition / representation in the Court. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE sahare