IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONSNO.100 OF 2008 CHAMBER SUMMONSNO.100 OF 2008 CHAMBER SUMMONSNO.100 OF 2008 IN IN IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.50 OF 1993. TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.50 OF 1993. TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.50 OF 1993. IN IN IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.661 OF 1999. TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.661 OF 1999. TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.661 OF 1999. Jayesh S. Jhaveri ..Petitioner/ Plaintiff versus Smt.Satya Prakash Kaur ..Defendants/ Caveators Mr.A.M.Vernekar for the Plaintiff Mr.R.B.Jaiswal for the defendant in support of Notice of Motion CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 23rd Oct., 2008. DATED : 23rd Oct., 2008. DATED : 23rd Oct., 2008. P.C. 1. The plaintiff herein filed testamentary petition as above for the purpose of having the Will of late Mohanlal Chopra probated, being Will dated 3.1.1989. The defendant herein has taken out the aforesaid Chamber Summons so as to seek directions against the plaintiff to allow inspection of the Deed of Assignment dated 3.1.1989 referred to in prayer clause (a). Affidavit in reply to the Chamber Summons is filed. 2. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. R.K.Jaiswal for the defendant in support of the -2- Chamber Summons and Learned Advocate Mr. Vernekar opposing the Chamber Summons. The present suit arises in regard to the Will which according to the plaintiff was executed by late Mohanlal Chopra. In my view, in situation like this, the question whether said Mohanlal Chopra executed Deed of Assignment dated 3.1.1989 is not at all relevant and therefore there is no question of granting inspection of the said document to the defendant for the purpose of deciding the testamentary suit. 3. In the course of arguments, learned advocate Mr. Vernekar upon instructions stated that as of today the plaintiff is not in possession of the Deed of Assignment dated 3.1.1989 referred to in prayer clause (a). Statement made by learned Advocate Mr. Vernekar is recorded. 4. As of today, I am inclined to observe that the defendant cannot ask for inspection of the documents which has no relevance while deciding the testamentary suit. If the plaintiff chooses to refer to this document dated 3.1.1989 in the course of hearing of this testamentary suit, then equity will require that the plaintiff must afford -3- inspection to the defendant. For the aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to dispose of the Chamber Summons by passing the following Order. ORDER . Statement made by learned Advocate Mr. Vernekar, upon instructions from the plaintiff that the plaintiff is not in possession of the Deed of Assignment dated 3.1.1989, referred to in prayer clause (a) is accepted. . If plaintiff refers to the aforesaid Deed of Assignment dated 3.1.1989 in the course of trial of this testamentary suit, then plaintiff will have to give inspection of the aforesaid document to the defendant. . Chamber Summons disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. . Testamentary suit to come up on board on 24.11.2008 for recording of evidence. -4- (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)