1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.2571 OF 2008 NO.2571 OF 2008 NO.2571 OF 2008 M/S. N.D.ASSOCIATES & ORS. ...PETITIONERS. VS. RUPEE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ...RESPONDENTS. Mr. S.P.Thorat for the petitioners. Mr. K.V. Tembe for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : A.A.Sayed, J. A.A.Sayed, J. A.A.Sayed, J. Date : October 21, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court No. 2, Pune, whereby the Application of the respondent-bank for production of documents and giving additional evidence was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 5000/-. 3. The thrust of the argument of the 2 petitioners is that an Application for similar relief having been rejected earlier, subsequent Application seeking the same reliefs ought not have been allowed and therefore the trial Court has erred in allowing the Application of the petitioners. It is further contended that the matter is part-heard and fixed for arguments of the respondent-bank and at this belated stage the Application has been made and therefore the same ought to have been rejected. It is also argued that no sufficient cause has been made out by the rspondent-bank as to why the documents in question were not produced earlier at the time of adduction of their evidence. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order, I am not inclined to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Judge in allowing the Application of the respondent-bank. The respondent-bank is carrying on public function and the documents which are sought to be relied upon are the documents prima facie executed during the course of regular banking business. No prejudice can be caused to the petitioners if the Application is allowed. 3 The documents in my view may prove to be vital and will enable the court to effectually adjudicate the dispute and pronounce better judgment. It is noted that the trial court has also granted liberty to prove the documents as per provisions of law, in the event the petitioners deny the documents. 5. The petitioner’s reliance on the decisions (1) SATHYADHYAN GHOSAL AND ORS VS. (1) SATHYADHYAN GHOSAL AND ORS VS. (1) SATHYADHYAN GHOSAL AND ORS VS. DEORAJIN DEORAJIN DEORAJIN DEBI (SMT) AND ANOTHER, reported in DEBI (SMT) AND ANOTHER, reported in DEBI (SMT) AND ANOTHER, reported in (1960) (1960) (1960) 3 SCR 590, (2) PRAHLAD SINGH VS. 3 SCR 590, (2) PRAHLAD SINGH VS. 3 SCR 590, (2) PRAHLAD SINGH VS. COL.SUKHDEV COL.SUKHDEV COL.SUKHDEV SINGH, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 727 SINGH, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 727 SINGH, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 727 and and and (3)JAYARAM DAS AND ANR. VS. DR. PRATAP (3)JAYARAM DAS AND ANR. VS. DR. PRATAP (3)JAYARAM DAS AND ANR. VS. DR. PRATAP CHANDRA CHANDRA CHANDRA DAS AND ORS., reported in AIR 2004 NOC DAS AND ORS., reported in AIR 2004 NOC DAS AND ORS., reported in AIR 2004 NOC 453 453 453 (ORISSA) (ORISSA) (ORISSA), are in my view misplaced. The aforesaid decisions which deal with principles of resjudicata in interlocutory applications would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand inasmuch as in the facts of the present case, on perusal of both the Applications it cannot be said that the reliefs sought in both the Applications are the same, since in the subsequent Application there is also a prayer for adducing additional evidence. 4 6. Needless to say that the petitioners will have an opportunity to rebut the evidence. Hence, in my view no fault can be found with the impugned order. 7. In the circumstances I find no merits in the petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed. ... [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]