JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 19.07.2016, passed by the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No.445 of 2011, below Exhibit 74, whereby the documents sought to be placed on record by respondent no.1 (original plaintiff), were marked as exhibits and admitted in evidence. The petitioner (original defendant no.1) has also challenged order dated 18.10.2016, whereby an application for review filed by the petitioner was rejected.

2. The respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner and other defendants. On 17.06.2016, the respondent no.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). By order dated 17.06.2016, the trial Court recorded that the plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) was expected to give formal proof of the documents and the affidavit in evidence was taken on record. Thereafter, the suit was listed before the trial Court on 12.07.2016, but it was adjourned. Thereafter, on 19.07.2016, the first impugned order was passed, wherein the trial Court examined the stages in which the documents were accepted to be marked as exhibits and admitted in evidence and then the trial Court gave exhibits to the certain documents, while not marking others as exhibits, from among the documents placed on record on behalf of the respondent no.1. On 17.03.2017, the petitioner filed an application for review marked as Exhibit 95, whereby the petitioner sought review of the aforesaid order dated 19.07.2016 of the trial Court, under which the documents were marked as exhibits and they were shown to have been admitted in evidence. The grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner in the Review Application was that, on 19.07.2016, the trial Court could not have straight way marked exhibits to the documents and due to the procedure adopted by the trial Court, the petitioner was prevented from raising abjection to marking of some documents as exhibits, due to which he had suffered grave prejudice. By the second impugned order dated 18.10.2016, the trial Court rejected the Review Application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two impugned orders, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Mr. G.M. Shitut, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the trial Court committed a grave error in depriving the petitioner an opportunity to raise objection in respect of the documents that were sought to be placed on record on behalf of the respondent no.1. It is submitted that as per the law down by this Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court, there would be certain documents in respect of which objection was required to be raised by the petitioner as the defendant at the very stage when the documents were sought to be marked as exhibits. It was submitted that in the absence of an opportunity granted to the petitioner to raise such objection, there was no enquiry conducted by the trial Court and this has resulted in the trial Court itself examining the documents and marking some of them as exhibits while not marking the others. It was submitted that during the course of trial the petitioner will suffer grave prejudice, because it could be held against him that he had failed to raise objection at the appropriate stage in respect of certain documents that stood already marked as exhibits. It was further submitted that this aspect was highlighted on behalf of the petitioner in the Review Application, but the trial Court failed to appreciate the same while passing the impugned order dated 18.10.2016. On this basis, it was submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and an opportunity was required to be granted to the petitioner to raise appropriate objection before the documents were marked as exhibits. It was further subm