(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11152 OF 2010 1. Smt. Archana w/o. Preetam Kabra, Age : 36 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. C/o. Somani Agencies, Opp. Shivaji Nagar, Police Station, Ambejogai Road, Latur, Through its G.P.A., Petitioner No.2. 2. Subhash s/o. Gulabchand Somani, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. C/o. Somani Agencies, .. Petitioners Opp. Shivaji Nagar, Police Station, (Original Ambejogai Road, Latur. defendants) versus M/s. Radhakishan Ramchandra, A registered Partnership firm, Through its partner, Dineshkumar Murlidhar Inani, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Business, .. Respondent R/o. Main Road, Latur. (Original plaintiff) ....................... (2) Shri A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. Anjali Dube, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Shri A.P. Bhandari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the application seeking leave to produce documents was filed on 10-8-2010 and it was rejected on 6-10-2010 only because the same are in bulk and the matter was part heard. He further states that again production of some important documents was sought for on 26-10-2010 and without giving any reason, production has been rejected. He has invited attention to the fact that the suit is between landlord and tenant and on 11-3-2010, respondent / plaintiff (landlord), sought production of certain documents. He further states that the decree for eviction of the petitioner is claimed on account of alleged non-user of premises. (3) 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has also pointed out deletion of provisions of Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and his contention is it does not in any way affect the jurisdiction available to court. According to him, relevance of the documents sought to be produced cannot be examined at this stage. He is relying upon following three judgments delivered by Panaji Bench of this Court in support of his contention : (1) 2005(4) Bom.C.R. 342, in the case of Ivy Muriet Fonseca Vs. Porus Adi Doctor. (2) 2006(5) Bom.C.R. 602, in the case of Chitrakala Fal Dessai Vs. Balu Marathe @ Mane, and (3) 1996(4) Bom.C.R. 50, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Madgavkar Salvage and Towage Co. Pvt. Ltd. Lastly, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the respondent / plaintiff may be compensated in the matter by imposing appropriate costs. 4. Smt. Anjali Dube, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, is opposing the petition. She states that the orders passed do not reveal any jurisdictional error or perversity. (4) 5. Perusal of the judgment in the case of Ivy Muriet Fonseca Vs. Porus Adi Doctor (supra) shows that a document can be filed even later with the permission of the court. The court has found that the stage of production was not material for deciding whether documents would be relevant or not. The fact, whether it would demonstrate defect in title or not was found to be relevant for adjudication in the suit. The court has also considered limited scope available in writ jurisdiction to it and found that when order is based on ignorance or in utter disregard of law or resulting in miscarriage of justice or when there is error apparent on the face of record, it can interfere. 6. In the case of Chitrakala Fal Dessai Vs. Balu Marathe @ Mane (supra), this Court has found that the documents sought to be produced were mostly of public nature and its production was found to be delayed for valid reasons. 7. In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Madgavkar Salvage and Towage Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the documents were admitted in evidence and then a revision was filed challenging it. 8. Here, the petitioner / defendant was aware of the (5) relevance of documents which according to him show that suit premises were being used continuously. He was put on guard when other side sought order for production of certain documents from him on 11-3-2010. The first application has been filed on 10-8-2010 and application only refers to documents with contention that the same will be useful to decide the controversy. No reason is assigned as to why those documents could not be filed earlier. The application came to be rejected on 6-10-2010. Thereafter, on 26-10-2010, again without assigning any reason, second application came to be filed seeking leave to produce some other documents. That application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 26-10-2010. 9. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial court has looked into relevant aspects and noted absence of any reason for its production earlier. The documents with list at Exhibit 43 were sought to be produced along with the affidavit of examination in chief and documents with list at Exhibit 55 was sought to be produced after the petitioner's / defendant's cross examination. It is important to note that this Court was also not approached immediately. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in the present jurisdiction. (6) 10. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. 11. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks extension of ad interim relief already operating. The request is rejected. Consequently, ad interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11152