BHIMJIBHAI NARSHIHBHAI MALAVIYA Vs. PRATHMESH FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order passed below Exh.523 in RCS No.199 of 2001 dtd. 30/12/2021 by the trial court is sought to be challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioners ' defendants no.9 and 10 sought to produce the documents vide list produced at Exh.524 wherein the trial court mainly relied upon the reasons that defendant no.9 and 10 are intended to produce the document at belated stage; without any explanation and seven witnesses from the plaintiff side and two witnesses from the defendant side are examined and hence reason to allow the production of document at belated stage and as such passed the impugned. However, while passing such order, the trial court allowed document at Sr. No.1, 2, 7, 10, 44 and 54 to 56 but the application for production of other documents are rejected.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Mr.P C Kavina appearing for the petitioner submits that defendant nos.9 and 10 have been joined as necessary party in the year 2018. Since 2019 on-wards, the COVID was operating and proceedings of the suit were standstill. No sooner the COVID goes, the petitioner filed application at Exh.523 seeks leave of this court to produce documents at later stage and filed the list of documents at Exh.524. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kavina would further submit that they were go by particulars stated in this list of documents wherein upto Sr. No.56 are certified copy of the proceedings undertaken of revenue side; some transaction in paper cuttings except that there is no other document which the petitioner is intending to produce.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel Ms.Megha Jani appearing for the contesting respondent while supporting the impugned order would submit that as many as seven witnesses on plaintiff side are examined and two witnesses from the defendant side are examined. The petitioner without offering any plausible explanation filed the documents at the belated stage which may cause prejudice to the right of the plaintiff and therefore trial court has rightly rejected the application seeking production of document and as such order is not suffering from palpable irregularities or jurisdictional error and therefore she would submit to dismiss the present petition.