WP/7049/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7049 OF 2010 Dhirajlal Raishi Chheda ... Petitioner V/s. Raishi Shivji Chheda ... Respondent Mr.Induprakash Tripathi i/b Sarwankar & Co. for Petitioner Mr.G.H. Shukla for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 18, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order passed on 21.7.2010 by the Small Causes Court on an application at exhibit 93 which has been dismissed. 2. The respondent herein had not filed its written statement within the period prescribed. The Small Causes Court had allowed the respondent to file a written statement belatedly. Aggrieved by that order, the Petitioner had preferred a revision application. That revision application was allowed on 19.3.2009. Aggrieved by that order the Respondent preferred Writ Petition No.6013 of 2009. By an order dated 29.7.2009, this Court had set aside the order passed by the Small Causes Court on revision application on No.271 of 2008. The Respondent in the present case was permitted to file the written statement within 10 days of the Court’s order, subject to WP/7049/2010 : 2 : payment of costs. Liberty was granted to the petitioner / plaintiff to file an additional affidavit of evidence since the affidavit of evidence had already been taken on record. This liberty was granted to the petitioner as the written statement was taken on record. 3. It appears that the written statement was taken on record on by the trial Court 8.8.2009. The petitioner filed an affidavit of additional evidence alongwith documents on 11.9.2009. An objection was raised by the respondent herein on the ground that there is no application alongwith the documents seeking leave to produce those documents. Therefore, an application, though unnecessary, was filed by the petitioner at exhibit 93. That application has been rejected by the Small Causes Court. The main ground for rejecting the application was that the documents could have been filed when the first affidavit in examination in chief was filed. 4. In my opinion, the order of the Small Causes Court is erroneous. Liberty had been granted by this Court for filing additional documents alongwith the additional affidavit of evidence. In these circumstances, there was in fact no need to file an application for leave to produce those additional documents. The relevance of these documents and the admissibility of the documents can always be considered by the Court at the appropriate time. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The documents produced by the Petitioner shall be taken on record subject to their admissibility. 6. Petition disposed of accordingly.