Judgment 1. Notice of Motion 506 of 2007 has been taken out by the Intervenor praying for condonation of delay of 46 days in filing the objections to the report dated 6th August, 2007 and the objections be heard in accordance with law. 2. At the very outset we may notice that in this case arguments were heard and the case was reserved for judgment on 21st August, 2007, where after the matter was mentioned and Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated that they wish to place certain documents on record and for that purpose an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner accompanied by number of documents. Prayer today before the Court is that these documents be taken on record and be considered before the judgment is pronounced. 3. To this, an affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.10. It is stated that the documents annexed to this affidavit ought not to be taken on record because those documents were always in possession of the Petitioner or atleast the Petitioner was aware of the documents and to delay the proceedings they have been brought on record at such a belated stage. 4. Counsel appearing for Respondent No.10 referred to paragraphs 5 and 8 of the affidavit stating the averments made to the effect that the documents came to the knowledge of the Applicant only in the second week of September 2007. On the contrary, in a previous litigation where the Petitioner had moved an application for being impleaded as a party, these documents were on record and thus were within the knowledge of the Applicant. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length, we are of the considered view that what the Court has to examine at this stage is whether these documents have any bearing on the matters in issue in the writ petition and would help the Court in fully and finally adjudicating the matter. Merely because there was some delay on the part of the Applicant could not justify rejection of the documents. Our observation that these documents are relevant is to be construed strictly and the right of Respondent No. 10 to show that these documents are not relevant and/or do not have any effect on the merits of the case is obviously kept open. Our observation that these documents are relevant is to be construed strictly and the right of Respondent No. 10 to show that these documents are not relevant and/or do not have any effect on the merits of the case is obviously kept open. As far as the application of the Intervenor is concerned, there is some delay in filing the objections, but that per se should not been the Applicant raising objections to the report inasmuch as the matter is to be heard again and thus, no prejudice will be caused to any of the parties if the documents are taken into consideration and the objections of the Intervenor are considered in accordance with law. 6. While allowing the request of both these Applicants, we direct the Petitioner to pay a costs of Rs.10,000/- and the Applicants to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- respectively to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority and place the receipts on record. We make it further clear that Respondent No.10 or any other Respondent who wants to file any additional affidavit in regard to the relevancy of the documents and their effect on the merits of the case should do so within two weeks from today. 7. Liberty to all the parties to file reply to the objections raised by the Applicant within two weeks. In view of the above stated circumstances, the Petition shall be listed for further arguments on 29th October, 2007.