R.V. Ghuge, J.

1. I have heard Mr. Uday S. Malte, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner for quite sometime. The petitioner takes an exception to the impugned order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the trial Court below Exhibit-147 in RCS No. 159/2001.

2. The grievance is that an objection raised under Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been considered by the trial Court in it's proper perspective and has, therefore, led to the passing of the impugned order, which is erroneous.

3. The factual matrix reveals that the second witness of the plaintiff filed an affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief at Exhibit-145 under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is dated 16.9.2014. On the same date, the said witness before the trial Court, verified the contents of the said affidavit. Further examination-in-chief was conducted. The "Sammati Patra" (consent deed/letter) dated 22.9.1993 was placed on record. The said document was shown to the said witness who identified the said document. He identified his signature as well as signatures appearing on the said document. He stated that the signatories have signed upon the said document in his