30 WP 5637 22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

30 WRIT PETITION NO.5637 OF 2022

SUMIT ALIAS NIRAJ DILIP JAISWAL

VERSUS

CHHAYA DILIP JAISWAL AND OTHERS

...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Palod Lalitkumar Bansilal.

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE

: 20.06.2022.

PER COURT :

Heard learned advocate Mr. Palod for the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner is defendant No. 4 before the trial court. He is

aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court during the process of

recording of examination in chief of the respondent/plaintiff, directing

certain documents to be exhibited for the purpose of identification.

3.

The learned advocate Mr. Palod would strenuously submit that the

documents which are apparently inadmissible in evidence and are not

even public documents have been marked with exhibit numbers by

making an observation that those are public documents. He submits that

the learned Judge has not clarified that he would subsequently consider

the admissibility of the documents. The petitioner is anxious because of

the observations made in the order that the documents are public

documents in spite of the fact that those are not public documents

besides being merely duplicate or copies of the original documents, that

too without making out the grounds which would entitle a party to lead

secondary evidence.

4.

During the course of examination in chief of the respondent/

plaintiff, the petitioner had taken objection in respect of admissibility of

documents like a copy of ration card, a copy of pass-book and an extract

1/2

30 WP 5637 22.odt

of school register etc. It was specifically pointed out that these

documents were not public documents and the grounds to enable the

respondent to lead secondary evidence were also not made out. Still, the

learned Judge has directed to mark these documents with exhibit

numbers. Pertinently, he has specifically made it clear in the order itself

that he was exhibiting the documents only for the purpose of

identification. Apparently, no specific order as to the admissibility of

these documents in evidence much less regarding proof thereof have

been made in the order under challenge.

5.

Needless to state that mere exhibition of documents does not

dispense with proof. It would be always open for the petitioner to

demonstrate as to how these documents are not admissible in evidence

and cannot be read in evidence, even during the course of arguments to

be advanced while deciding the suit. The petitioner cannot be said to

have been put to any prejudice merely because the documents have been

marked exhibit numbers for the purpose of identification. It would in

fact enable him to refer to these documents during the cross-examination

of the respondent to be conducted.

6.

It is in view of such state of affairs, when the law is well settled

and even the impugned order does not specifically conclude that these

documents objected to by the petitioner have been duly proved, it would

be improper to prejudge the issue. The petitioner would get every

opportunity to assail these documents at the hearing of the arguments.

7.

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

mkd/-

2/2