RADHESHYAM JANGAD Vs. SHANTI PRALHAD SAKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Writ Petition No.4002 of 2023 the challenge is to the legality and validity of order dtd. 1/8/2022 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court at Mumbai (Bandra Branch) below Exhibit- 33 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.374/528 of 2011. The said application was filed by Plaintiffs i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 seeking leave for production of additional documents under Order XIII Rule 1, 4 and 7 and Order XVI Rule 6 and 7 of C.P.C. By impugned order, the learned Trial Court allowed the said application. Thus, production of documents were allowed and the said suit was adjourned for hearing on admissibility of documents. The order impugned in other Writ Petitions is also similar.

(2.) These Writ Petitions were heard in the morning session on 30/3/2023 and were rejected. As by the impugned order, merely production of documents were allowed and matter was kept for hearing on admissibility of documents it is observed in order dtd. 30/3/2023 that there is no prejudice caused to the Petitioners and therefore, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not required. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions were dismissed, however, by said order it is clarified that all the contentions in respect of admissibility of the documents produced by the Respondents was kept open. Said order dismissing the Writ Petition was passed on 30/3/2023 in the morning session. However, at 1.32 p.m., learned Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court (Original Side), Bombay received complaint dtd. 30/3/2023 made by Mr. Vishwanbhar M. Parkar, Advocate having address at 1/B, 403, Saamana Parivar CHS Limited, General Arun Kumar Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 065. The said complaint is set out hereinbelow:-

(3.) In view of said complaint, learned Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court (Original Side), Bombay placed before this Court report dtd. 30/3/2023. The said report inter alia states as follows:-