JAGATBHAI PUNJABHAI PALKHIWALA Vs. VIKRAMBHAI PUNJABHAI PALKHIWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the order of the trial Court refusing permission to take copies of the documents in the custody of the Court.

(2.) THE petitioners (original plaintiffs) have filed a suit for a declaration that all the ventures undertaken by the plaintiff and contesting defendants were joint ventures carried on behalf of the joint members in which all the family members have interest; and such business ventures and properties assets were more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint and it was contended that the plaintiff's side had 1/3 share therein and a prayer was made for accounts, partition etc. In the suit, by a notice of motion, several interim prayers were made, such as injunction regarding alienation of property, appointment of receiver, appointment of Commissioner to make inventory and to take possession of books of accounts and papers etc. One of the prayers was to take possession of the arbitration agreement and proceedings and documents from the arbitrators defendant No. 9 to 11. The learned Trial Judge granted ex parte order appointing a Commissioner to make inventory in respect of the point referred to in para (d) in the prayer clause of the notice of motion. Accordingly, the Commissioner made the inventary. The Commissioner also took possession of the documents from the arbitrator and brought to the Court and the same were ordered to be kept in safe custody. By an application Ex. 43, the petitioner-plaintiffs applied for the inspection of documents produced by Commissioner. The request was objected by the defendants. However, the learned trial Judge granted inspection by his order dated September 1, 1981. Similarly, defendants also applied for inspection by Ex. 44 which was also granted. Notice of motion was heard and the arguments were advanced before the trial Court. During the course of hearing, certain of these documents were sought to be referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner even though they were not referred to in any of the pleadings or affidavit. Same was objected by the defendants.

(3.) AFTER the above order below Ex. 100, the petitioners gave another application for inspection of the record collected by the Commissioner and the same was granted. However, when the inspection was being taken, it appears that there was some trouble between the parties and some heat was generated. Thereafter, the petitioners-plaintiffs submitted an application Ex. 102 in continuation of the application Ex. 102 stating that to give complete justice to the parties and to see that controversy and litigations are avoided the Court may permit the plaintiffs to have xerox copies of all the documents taken possession of by the defendants at their own costs. That application has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the record of the arbitration proceedings has yet not become part of the record of the suit and unless it becomes part of the R. and P. of this case, the question of obtaining permission for xerox copies did not arise.