Documents can be directly produced at the stage of cross-examination of a witness, without seeking prior leave of the Court, as established in the case of Mohammed abdul Wahid S/o Late Dr. Mohammed abdul aziz Vs. Smt. Nilofer Wd/o Dr. Mohammad abdul Salim and another.

JUDGMENT

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at admission stage with consent of both the sides.

2 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4th January, 2022 passed below Exhibit-70 by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, aurangabad Region, aurangabad in application No.J-1/19/2018 under Section 50a-1 of the Maharashtra Public Trust act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' for the sake of convenience), whereby the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner was pleased to allow the application for production of documents moved by respondent No.1.

3 Let us have a glance on brief facts:

a) The proceedings of inquiry under Section 50a-1 of the act is in progress. The cross-examination of the petitioner in the capacity as original objector is in progress when respondent No.1 moved an application before the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner and sought permission to produce certain documents to bring on record contradictions in the version of the petitioner. The say of the petitioner was called upon and accordingly, the petitioner has filed his say.

b) The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner after considering the facts of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and considering the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 (4), Order VIII Rule 1(a)(4)(a) and Order XIII Rule 1(3)

(a) of the Civil Procedure Code was pleased to allow the application for production of documents.

c) Feeling aggrieved by the order of allowing production of documents by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, aurangabad Region, aurangabad, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court by taking aid of article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4 Heard Mr. Vivek Dhage, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the copy of application vide Exhibit-70, say filed by the petitioner/objection petitioner and the impugned order dated 4th January, 2022. I have also gone through the copies of statements of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the proceedings, copy of memo of inquiry No.J-1/19/2018 and copy of memo of objection filed by the petitioner.

5 according to Mr. Vivek Dhage, learned counsel for petitioner, the impugned order passed by the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner, aurangabad is improper, incorrect and illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that the evidence of original applicant Nos.1 and 2 is over. Cross-examination of the petitioner/objection petitioner is in progress. The respondents, in order to fill up lacuna in their case, have attempted to lead evidence in the nature of documents though their evidence is already over. He invited my attention to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and vehemently submitted that in absence of any pleading, the Court cannot go into the same even though some evidence is adduced. a party has to plead its case and produce sufficient evidence to substantiate its case. He also invited my attention to Section 61 of the Evidence act. Mr. Vivek Dhage, learned counsel for petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order has caused prejudice to the rights and interest of the petitioner. There was no reason for the Deputy Charity Commissioner to allow the production of documents at a very late stage when cross-examination of the petitioner is at fag end. Mr. Vivek Dhage, learned counsel for petitioner urged to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner dated 4th January, 2022.

6 Mr. Vivek Dhage, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following citations in support of his submissions:

a) Biraji @ Brijraji and another Vs. Surya Pratap and others, reported in, 2020 (10) SCC 729 ;

b) Noor Kabirdin Meghani and others Vs. Sanjeev Manuel D'Souza, reported in, 2021 (5) all.M.R. 143 ;

c) Liquidator Vs. Jeejaee Estate and others, reported in, 2019 (1) all.M.R. 884 ; and

d) Rajasthan State TPT Corpn. and another Vs. Bajrang Lal, reported in, 2014 aIR SCW 2058