1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. The present petitioner/original plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit properties described in Schedule A and B of the plaint.

4. The Respondents/defendants pursuant to suit summons appeared and denied the case of the petitioner and further claimed that the plaintiff has executed Hakksod affidavit on 30.7.2007. .5. The Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit filed an application (Exh.61) stating that the plaintiff has executed Hakksod affidavit on accepting consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lacs) and has relinquished her share in the ancestral property. The said document is on insufficient stamp. Vide said application prayed to impound the document. The said application is filed on 23.2.2009. The said application was pending consideration and was not decided. The plaintiff led her evidence. The defendants also led their evidence. DW 5 was examined and referred the said Hakksod-patra in his examination-in-chief and in the said examination-in-chief referred it as Exh.80. The said document was never exhibited by the Court prior to the examination-in-chief. The said examination-in-chief of DW5 was filed on affidavit and in the said affidavit itself he referred to said document as Exh.80. The said witness was cross-examined. on the document also Exh.80 was given. The plaintiff on the very same day i.e. the date when the affidavit of DW5 of examination-in-chief was filed on 27.8.2009, filed an application Exh.82 for de-exhibiting the document. The trial Court vide its order dated 8.6.2011 rejected the said application Exh.82 filed by the plaintiff. On that day, the learned trial Judge also passed an order below Exh.61 i.e. the application given by the defendant to impound the said Hakksod affidavit. The learned Judge vide order below Exh.61 observed that at present it is not possible to accept the request made on behalf of the defendants. However, as and when nature of the document would be clear further legal order will be passed.

6. The plaintiff has assailed the order below Exh.82, rejecting his application for deexhibiting the said document in the present Writ Petition.

7. Mr.Totala, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the petitioner had taken objection regarding the insufficiency of stamp earlier only i.e. prior to its exhibition. The defendants themselves had filed an application to impound the said document being insufficiently stamped. When that was the position, the Court could not have exhibited the said document without deciding the objection about insufficiency of the stamp. According to the learned counsel, the said document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and also on account of the fact that it is on insufficient stamp. The learned counsel contends that the said document is not exhibited as per the procedure laid down in order 13 of the C.P.C. and it is no exhibition in the eyes of law. The application Exh.82 of the plaintiff should have been allowed. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Sunil Tukaram Bharadkar Vs. Santosh Gopichand Rane" reported in 2006(5) Bom.C.R. 237. The learned counsel submits that the document was required to be de-exhibited and the learned Judge has committed an error in rejecting the said application. It is incorrect to observe that the said document is exhibited on the basis of evidence given by DW 5.

8. Mr.V.D.Sapkal, learned counsel for the defendants/respondents submits that the Court was right in passing the impugned order below Exh.82. There is no provision for de-exhibiting the document. The plaintiff has not challenged the order exhibiting the document. In view of that the Writ Petition can not be entertained. When the original order exhibiting the document itself is not c