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 decla- ration 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 plaintiffs 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 inventory. 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 Sept. 1 1981 Similarly defendants also applied for inspection by Ex. 44 which was also granted. Notice of motion was heard ant 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 petitioners even though they were not referred to in any of the pleadings or affidavit. Same was objected by the defendants.

(3.) An application was given by the plaintiffs at Ex. 100 praying that the documents collected by the Commissioner are required to be made part of the record and required to be exhibited in the suit. That application was rejected and the revision application against that order being CRA No. 708 of 1982 is dismissed by me today and I have confirmed the order of the trial court directing the parties to file proper affidavit in respect of the documents relied.