JUDGMENT :

A.P. Thaker, J.

1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 24.6.2019 passed by the 6th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot below Exh-553 in Special Civil Suit No. 78/2000 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for de-exhibiting documents has been rejected, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 1 herein has filed the aforesaid suit for the specific performance of contract against the present petitioner and other respondents wherein earlier the original plaintiff-respondent no. 1 herein has moved an application Exh-382 for exhibiting the documents mentioned in the said application, which was partly allowed by trial Court on 19.9.2011. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 has also filed another application Exh-396 for exhibiting the documents, which were referred to in earlier application Exh-382, which was also rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 9.12.2011. It is contended that against that order the plaintiff has filed Special Civil Application No. 18870 of 2011 before this Court wherein this Court has passed following order:

"2. ...In light of the statement made at bar, the petitioner- plaintiff is directed to take recourse to pay the sufficient stamp duty under the provisions of the Act in accordance with law and such procedure shall be undertaken within two weeks. After completion of the formalities under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner- plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh application for exhibiting and admission of the document in question. As and when such application is moved, the learned trial Judge shall decide the same in accordance with law and after hearing aforesaid procedure within two weeks, in that event, the learned trial Judge shall not adjourn the hearing of the suit, even on account of pendency of procedure before the Collector. With these observations and directions, present petition is disposed of."

3. It is contended by the petitioner that thereafter the respondent no. 1 i.e. plaintiff submitted purshis along with application addressed to the Collector, Stamp Duty dated 14.12.2016 for impounding the documents, which is still pending with the Collector, Stamp Duty, Rajkot.

It is also contended that after the evidence of the plaintiff i.e. respondent no. 1 was over, the respondent no. 2 i.e. original defendant no. 8 filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 2.4.2018/1.5.2018 at Exh-542. Thereafter in the absence of the petitioner's advocate, cross examination of the respondent no. 1-plaintiff was made. It is contended that respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are supporting each other and got the documents at Exh-388/1 exhibited in the evidence in absence of the petitioner's advocate. It is contended that since the documents were not earlier exhibited by the trial Court twice, it is contended that therefore the advocate for the petitioner has submitted an application on the same day for de-exhibiting the document which is exhibited at Exh-548, the said application was given Exh-553 and Exh-553 was kept for hearing at the relevant time. After hearing, the learned Judge has rejected the said application. It is the contention of the petitioner that when the documents were not exhibited twice, it should not have been exhibited during the cross-examination of the respondent no. 1. According to them, the documents in question cannot be exhibited but the trial Court has failed to consider that earlier the documents were not exhibited twice. It is also contended that without deciding the objection of the other side, the document has been exhibited by the trial Court, which is legally not tenable. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the learned Judge is erroneous and has prayed to set-aside the order passed by the learned Judge and allow his application at Exh-553 and de-exhibit the document.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.R. Thack