JUDGMENT :

S.M. MODAK, J.

1. Heard by consent finally at the admission stage itself. Rule.

2. Petitioner No. 2 claims to be a Managing Director of Petitioner No. 1 company. He has tried to persuade Legal Services Authority for getting an Advocate as legal aid counsel. There is no further development. Without waiting further, considering the limited controversy involved, I have heard him and Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, learned Counsel for the Respondent. It seems that Petitioner No. 2 is pursuing since long about his grievance about not producing document before the trial court. He and his company were defendants in Special Summary Suit No. 18 of 2009. That was the suit for recovery of money filed by the vendor/builder, the present Respondent against these two Petitioners. The suit was decreed.

3. At least from the record made available, it can be said that the Petitioners have not preferred substantial civil appeal. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the builder is bound to supply a copy of sanctioned plan pertaining to shop/office taken on lease by the Petitioners. Inspite of their