Bombay High Court
WALKESHWAR TRIVENI CO OP HSG SOC LTDversusHIMANSHU ASHOK DOSHI AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Co-operative Court's orders directing a blanket production of documents were set aside as they lacked relevance, and future applications must demonstrate relevance, with exemplary costs for non‑relevant requests.
Summary
The Bombay High Court examined a writ petition filed by Walkeshwar Triveni CHS Ltd. challenging orders of the Co-operative Court that mandated the Society to produce an exhaustive list of documents demanded by Respondent No.1. The Court observed that the Co-operative Court had not examined the relevance of the documents and was conducting a fishing enquiry, which is impermissible. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Co-operative Court's orders dated 15 December 2025 and 21 April 2026. It directed that any future application for document production must specifically demonstrate relevance to the dispute, and non‑relevant applications may attract exemplary costs against the respondents. The writ petition was allowed and the accompanying interim application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Co-operative Court's blanket order for production of all documents is valid
- Whether the orders of the Co-operative Court should be set aside
- Whether exemplary costs can be imposed for filing irrelevant document production applications
Subjects
- document production
- co-operative court
- fishing enquiry
- exemplary costs
- writ petition
- interim application
- set aside order
Judgment
Neeta Sawant 19-WP-6540-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6540 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 18467 OF 2026
Walkeshwar Triveni CHS Ltd. …..Petitioner
: Versus :
Himanshu Doshi & Ors. ….Respondents
Mr. Ghanshyam Mishra with Ms. Ekta Bhalerao & Mr. Sujeet Chaudhary,
for the Petitioner.
Ms. Usha Tiwari with Ms. Vandana Tiwari, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 29 AUGUST 2026.
P.C :
1) Perusal of the application filed by Respondent No.1 at Exhibit-43
would clearly indicate that what is instituted by Respondent No.1 is a
roving enquiry. The learned Judge of the Co-operative Court has not even
bothered to go through the unending list of documents that Respondent
No.1 called upon the Society to produce. Without applying its mind to the
documents sought to be produced, the Co-operative Court has
mechanically directed production of each and every document demanded.
The approach of the Co-operative Court is not appreciated. The
Petitioner-Society is yet to file its evidence and will produce documents
which are necessary for proving its claim. In the event, relevant documents
are not produced, the disputant-society will fail in the dispute. However,
Respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to conduct a fishing enquiry by
calling upon the Society to produce virtually each and every document that
it possess in its office. To illustrate, Respondent no.1 sought copy of Lease
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 1 of 2
Saturday, 29 August 2026
Neeta Sawant 19-WP-6540-2026.docx
Agreement in respect of the land on which society's buildings are standing.
It is difficult to comprehend as to how this document is necessary for
determining whether the society is entitled to recover the claim amount
from Respondent No.1. Unfortunately, the learned Judge of the Co-
operative Court has not even bothered to go through the list of documents,
of which Respondent No1. demanded production.
2) Consequently, the order dated 15 December 2025 and order
dated 21 April 2026 passed by the Co-operative Court are set aside.
Setting aside the impugned orders would not preclude Respondents No.1
and 2 from filing fresh application for production of documents by
demonstrating the relevance of each document to the issue involved in the
dispute. In the event, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 file an application seeking
production of documents not having connection with the issue involved in
the dispute, the Co-operative Court shall reject such application by
imposing exemplary costs on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. With the above
directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
3) With disposal of the Writ Petition, the Interim Application
does not survive. The same also stands disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.08.31
14:54:56
+0530
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 2 of 2
Saturday, 29 August 2026
Checking your session…