1 WP No.4745/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4745 of 2010 Vibhuti Project Services ... Petitioner versus Pacecon Engineering Projects Ltd. ... Respondent ... Ms.Lalita Panchakshari for the petitioner. Mr.Tejesh Dande for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 6th June 2011 P.C. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Tejesh Dande waives service for the respondent. Heard forthwith. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the common order dated 16 December 2009 passed by the 8th Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Pune rejecting the applications at Exhibit 51 and 44 in Special Civil Suit No.392 of 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that she does not wish to challenge the order so far it relates to rejection of application at Exhibit 44 and limits of challenge to the order passed below Exhibit 51. 2 WP No.4745/10 3. Petitioner is the original plaintiff. He gave a notice to the defendant to produce certain documents. The defendant did not comply. Thereafter, the petitioner-plaintiff made an application to the Court at Exhibit 51 with a request that he be allowed to produce on record a copy of the notice to produce documents. That application was rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted what the petitioner wanted to produce on record was not only the notice to produce documents but also to seek an order directing the respondents to produce the documents. Per contra, counsel for the petitioner plaintiff states that all that the petitioner wanted to produce on record was a copy of the notice to produce documents issued to the respondents. Counsel further submits that the petitioner wanted to produce on record the notice to prove that the notice was actually given and the contents of the notice so that the petitioner could pray for drawing of a proper inference for non production of the documents. In view of this statement that petitioner is not seeking any direction for production of the documents but was only seeking to produce an office copy of the notice issued to the respondents for production of the documents, I see no reason why the production of the office copy of notice should be disallowed. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to produce on record office copy of the notice to produce documents issued by the plaintiff’s advocate to the defendant’s advocate on 24 July 2007. It is clarified that this order is not a direction to the respondent defendant to produce the documents 3 WP No.4745/10 mentioned in the notice and it would be open to the parties to address the court regarding the relevancy of those documents and inference to be drawn on account of their non production. 5. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. (D.G.KARNIK, J)