( 1 ) RULE. Shri Ravindra Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

( 2 ) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner original plaintiff has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18. 2. 2009 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad passed below Exh. 262 in Civil Suit No. 2780 of 2004, by which the learned Judge has passed an order to give tentative Exhibit number to the document Mark 52/4 and 52/18 keeping all the questions with respect to admissibility of the said document in evidence at the time of judgment.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under: the petitioner-plaintiff has instituted Civil Suit No. 2780 of 2004 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The defendant produced the documents along with the list Exh. 52 on 17. 11. 2005 inclusive of the documents Mark 52/4 and 52/18. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner -plaintiff that petitioner original plaintiff made endorsement admitting certain documents produced along with list Exh. 52, however did not admit the documents mark 52/4 and 52/18. That, those documents which were admitted exhibit numbers were given and as the documents Mark 52/4 and 52/18 were not admitted by the petitioner-plaintiff, the learned Judge / Court did not give the Exhibit numbers to the said documents. That thereafter, the suit came to be proceeded further. It appears that one suit came to be filed by the respondent original defendant also and an order came to be passed to consolidate both the suits. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter the plaintiff's evidence was over and even the evidence of the defendant was also completed and over and not only that but even the written argument of the petitioner-plaintiff was submitted on 10. 11. 2008. That thereafter, it was at the stage of submitting the oral submissions on behalf of the defendant and the matter was adjourned thereafter. It is to be noted at this stage that there is an order passed by this Court to complete the trial within stipulated time and the same expires on 31. 7. 2009. At that stage, the respondent-defendant submitted the application Exh. 262 to give exhibit numbers to the document produced at mark 52/4 and 52/18. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in AIR. 2001 SC, 1158 passed the impugned order giving tentative exhibit numbers to the documents mark 52/4 and 52/18 keeping all the questions with respect to the admissibility of those documents in evidence herein to be decided at the time of judgment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dated 18. 2. 2009 passed in Civil Suit No. 2780 of 2004 below Exh. 262, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) SHRI Sanjay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff has submitted that as such from the very beginning the petitioner-plaintiff objected to give the exhibit numbers to the document mark 52/4 and 52/18 by not admitting the said documents at the relevant time. It is submitted that in fact, petitioner led the evidence on the basis that those documents are exhibited. It is submitted that now, therefore, if these documents are exhibited at this stage even tentatively even by keeping all the questions with respect to the admissibility of those documents in evidence is to be considered at the time of delivering the judgment in that case if ultimately at that stage the learned Judge comes to the conclusion that those documents are admissible in evidence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document