1 (WP 4280 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4280 OF 2011 Hashmukh & Co.(P.G). ...Petitioner Vs. Rohit Anantrai Vyas and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Bharat Joshi for Petitioner Mr.A.A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Counsel i/b. Jayan R. Trivedi for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 29th June, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is the original Defendant-Tenant and the Respondents are the Original Plaintiffs/Landlords. 3. A suit was filed by the Plaintiffs for eviction of the Petitioner-tenant herein only on the ground of bonafide requirement. After the commencement of the trial, on 30th July, 2009, a letter was sent by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant-Tenant that the Plaintiffs intend to produce 5 documents. This was objected by the Defendant-tenant. The writ petition was filed by the Petitioner-Defendant in this Court challenging the order of the Trial Court 2 (WP 4280 of 2011) permitting the Plaintiffs to bring those documents on record. 4. This Court by order dated 9th August, 2010 permitting the Defendant to further cross examine the Plaintiffs’ witness in respect of those documents. The Defendant filed an application in October, 2010 for amendment of the written statement on the ground that he had secured certain documents which would go to show that the need of the Plaintiffs were not bonafide or genuine and that they have sufficient premises in their possession. The application for amendment of the written statement filed by the Defendant, was rejected on the ground that the Defendant had not established that the said averments in the written statement could not be made earlier in spite of due diligence being exercised by him. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that he has now come across various orders passed by the Court and also documents in respect of transfer of tenancy pending trial and these documents are relevant for the purpose of establishing his case. It is submitted that if he is not allowed to amend the written statement, an objection may be raised by the Plaintiffs and also by the Court that since there was no averment in the written statement, reliance could 3 (WP 4280 of 2011) not be placed by the Petitioner /Defendant on those documents. 6. Shri Kumbhakoni, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents-Original Plaintiffs, after taking instructions, submits that he has no objection if these documents are proved and are brought on record and it is not necessary to make any averments in the written statement to that effect. He has submitted that the Plaintiffs shall not raise any objection hereinafter on the ground that there was no pleading in the written statement either at the time of filing of the suit or thereafter. 7. This statement is accepted. The Trial Court is also directed to permit the Defendant to bring these documents on record in accordance with law and lead evidence to prove the contents of the documents, particularly, since the material facts regarding the genuineness of the need of the landlords is already pleaded in the written statement and in view of the Order 6 Rule 2 of CPC, particulars need not be mentioned in this case. The Trial Court also, therefore, shall not raise an objection that there are no averments in the written statement and, therefore, these documents could not be taken on record. It has to be noted, however, that the 4 (WP 4280 of 2011) suit was filed in 2005 and grievance of the Respondents herein is that applications are filed by the Petitioner- Defendant for the purpose of protracting the trial. This, however, is seriously disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner-Defendant. The roznama indicates that the cross-examination has proceeded for a very long time and, therefore, it is necessary to give a direction to the Trial Court to expeditiously disposed of the suit. It is also clarified that the Trial Court can always curtail the cross examination if it finds that the irrelevant questions are asked. The Defendant shall also co-operate with the Trial Court and finish his cross examination expeditiously. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of one year. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE J.)