JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Both these revision applications arise from a common judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court in Misc Civil Appeals Nos. 30/99 and 31/99. Since the common questions of law and facts arise in both the revision applications, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent.

3.At the outset, learned Advocate for the respondent has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the revision applications by referring to Chapter IV, Rule 20 of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 and submitted that in view of failure on the part of the petitioner to place on record copies of all the documents which are being referred to in the impugned orders passed by the courts below, the petitioner is not entitled to seek interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction in the impugned orders in relation to the findings arrived at based on such documents. Firstly, Rule 20 speaks about the obligation of the petitioner to file the copies of the material documents along with the petition and not regarding the powers of the Court to entertain th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document