1 368.2013 WP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 368 OF 2013

1.

Shram Sadhana Bombay Trust,

Hostel for Working Women,

in front of Cardinal Grecious

High School, Government Colony,

Subhash Nagar Bandra (E)

Mumbai-51.

2.

College of Engineering &

Technology, Bambhori, Tq.

Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon,

Through Administrative Officer,

Shri Yeshwant Kondusing Chitte

Age 40 years, Occu- Service

.. Petitioners

Versus

Shri Vikas Lalsing Patil,

Age 47 years, Occu Agri.,

R/o Ashbaba Colony, behind

Shiv Colony, Jalgaon,

Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon

.. Respondent

Shri A.K. Gugale, Advocate holding for

Shri A.G. Talhar, Advocate for petitioner

Shri K.C. Sant, Advocate for respondent sole

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

DATE : 12

th JUNE, 2013.

2 368.2013 WP

ORAL JUDGMENT :

.

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of

parties, taken up for final hearing.

2.

The petitioner assails the order passed below Exh. 81,

whereby the Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to

exhibit the documents filed along with list exhibit 82.

3.

Mr. Gugale, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the documents from serial No. 1 to 7 are not the original

documents and they are the xerox copies. The documents from

serial Nos. 8 to 17 are originals. According to the learned

counsel, even if the document is not original and it does not

create any right in favour of the party, such documents are

admissible in evidence. The learned counsel relies on the

Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of M/s.

Text India and others V. Punjab and Sind Bank and another,

reported in AIR 2003 Bombay 444 and another judgment of the

learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Rajesh Varma V.

Aminex Holdings and Investments & others; reported in 2008 (3)

Mh. L.J. 460.

3 368.2013 WP

4.

The learned counsel submits that the documents have been

proved as is required under Order 13 of the Code of Civil

Procedure by the evidence of witness of Rakesh Mowar. The

documents are produced along with list of documents and,

therefore, there was no impediments to the Court to exhibit the

said documents. The Trial Court committed an error by

upholding the objection raised by the respondent not to exhibit

the documents. The custody and the documents at this stage,

would not be relevant. According to the learned counsel, once the

documents are produced on record and have been proved as is

required under the law, same ought to have been exhibited.

5.

Mr. Sant, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff

supports the order and submits that the said witness Mr. Rakesh

Mowar has retired from service in October, 2011. Naturally,

could not have been in custody of the said documents, as the

documents are not coming from proper custody, the Court was

right in negating the same. No error has been committed by the

Court, while passing the impugned order.

6.

Documents from serial Nos. 1 to 7 filed vide list Exhibit 82

cannot be admitted in evidence, as they are not the originals.

4 368.2013 WP

The Judgment of this Court cannot be read as euclid thearom,

it will have to be read in the context in which it has been

delivered. In a case of M/s. Text India and others (supra), the

Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the documents

filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The factual matrix is

not appearing in the said judgment. The Court was not

considering about the nature of the documents i.e. whether they

were the originals or the xerox copies.

7.

Xerox copies of the documents would not be admissible in

evidence. In the present matter, no permiss