LAVANDE A. P. , J.

( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Dsilva, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

( 2 ) RULE. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, heard forthwith.

( 3 ) BY this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th August, 2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division c Court at Mapusa, in Special Civil Suit No. 85/2001/c, dismissing an application dated 27th november, 2002,. filed by the petitioner for production of certain documents mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application. The petitioner is the defendant in the above-referred suit and the respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement, the defendant filed an application seeking to produce six documents, which according to the petitioner are relevant for deciding the real matters in controversy between the parties. The application was opposed by the respondent and by the impugned order the trial Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner to rely upon and produce the said documents. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial judge dismissed the application holding that no case was made out by the petitioner/defendant for producing the said six documents relied upon by her and consequently, dismissed the application. The learned Judge has relied upon the provisions of Order XIII and Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code in support of his findings that the petitioner is not entitled to rely upon and produce the said documents.

( 4 ) MR. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has exercised jurisdiction illegally and that the impugned order discloses an error of law apparent on record. According to the learned Counsel, the said documents are relevant for proving the case set up by her. According to the learned Counsel, there is no absolute bar for the defendant in a suit to rely upon and produce the documents after issues are framed in the suit. The learned Counsel submits that even in an appeal upon sufficient cause being shown, the appellant can rely upon and produce documents under Order XLI, Rule 27 C. P. C. and, therefore, it cannot be said that once issues are framed the defendant is precluded from relying upon and producing any document which was not relied upon and produced before framing of issues. According to the learned Counsel, gross injustice would be caused to the petitioner/defendant if the impugned Order is allowed to stand and the petitioner is precluded from relying upon and producing the documents.

( 5 ) MR. Dsilva, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error and no interference is called for by this Court against the impugned order. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the documents are totally irrelevant since the suit filed by the respondent is for specific performance. He further submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the impugned order is very limited and having regard to the limited jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, this is not a fit case in which the impugned order deserves to be set aside. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relied upon the following authorities :-1. (Deenanath v. Chunnilal), A. I. R. 1975 Raj. 69, 2. (Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others), A. I. R. 2003 S. C. 3044. . 3. (Madanlal v. Shyamlal), 2002 (1) S. C. C. 535, and 4. (A. Abdul Rashid Khan (dead) and others v. P. A. K. A. Shahul Hamid and others), 2000 (10) S. C. C. 636.

( 6 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that Order viii, Rule 8-A of the C. P. C. has been omitted by the