: 1 : 314-10-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 314 OF 2010 Manoj Mangilal Jain .. Petitioner v/s. Hansa Lolaprasad Bhoravat .. Respondent ......... Mr. A.R. Pande for the petitioner Mr. Anil C. Singh i/b D.R. Singh for the respondent ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 5th OCTOBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. A.Singh appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service of the petition. By consent, petition is taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in L.C. Suit No.5186 of 2002 had finished his turn so far as placing evidence on record. The petitioner had filed evidence affidavit however, the petitioner had not stepped into witness box. Before that the respondent took out Notice of Motion No. : 2 : 314-10-wp=.sxw 1936 of 2009 praying therein that the petitioner be permitted to place on record a statement prepared in the year 1995 by MHADA Authority. That notice of motion was granted by the learned Judge of the City Civil Suit by order dated 23rd November, 2009. This order dated 23rd November, 2009 is challenged in this petition. 3. I have heard learned advocate for the petitioner as well as respondent. A perusal of the affidavit in support of the notice of motion clearly indicates that the respondent wanted to place on record a document prepared by MHADA in the year 1995 containing the list of tenants and occupants of the areas. Learned advocate Mr. Pande appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that an effort is being made to place on record the document after the case of the respondent was closed by his own desire. According to Mr. Pande, the notice of motion is taken out at belated stage and in any event learned Judge erred in granting the order. 4. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides. It is clear that the petitioner has not stepped into witness box to lead evidence. In my view, in order to allow the petitioner to present his case in proper perspective as : 3 : 314-10-wp=.sxw also to give him full opportunity, the learned Judge has granted the notice of motion. No fault is seen in the said impugned order. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the permission given by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court appears to be to allow the respondent to examine many more witnesses. A reading of the said order as well as the affidavit in support does not indicate in this direction. The respondent wants to produce the list as mentioned aforesaid. In such a case, the respondent will have to issue summons to MHADA Authority to enable MHADA to depute an Officer who would be able to produce before the Court, the list a reference to which is made in the affidavit in support. Surely, the respondent has to examine that witness because the respondent will have to prove the said list in accordance with the provisions of law. Mere production of the list through witness will not be sufficient. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, following order is passed to dispose of the petition. ORDER (i) No interference is required in the impugned order dated 23rd November, 2009. (ii) The respondent is permitted to examine any competent Officer of : 4 : 314-10-wp=.sxw MHADA to produce the list referred to in the affidavit in support and who shall be in a position to prove the said list in accordance with the provisions of law. (iii) The petitioner in petition in the City Civil Court will have every opportunity to examine that witness. (iv) Learned advocate for the petitioner states that cost of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court has been paid. Since the statement is made across the bar, it is accepted. As and by way of costs of this petition, respondent is directed to pay to petitioner costs of Rs.2,000/-. Cost to be paid on or before 21st October, 2011. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)