wp1320.11.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.1320/2011 Ratanlal Girdharilal Agrawal and others -vs- Radhakishan Girdharilal Agrawal and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri D. V. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri V.R.Choudhari, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. None for the other respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 30.08.2011. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court on 08/02/2011 rejecting an application for rejection of document produced by the respondents. The petitioners are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff for possession and damages. It is the case of the petitioners that while preparing the case for cross-examination, it was noticed by the petitioners that one of the documents which was exhibited and was styled as kiraya chitthi was inadmissible in evidence. The petitioners therefore raised an objection that the document be rejected being inadmissible in evidence. The trial Court, however by the impugned order dated 08/02/2011 partly allowed the wp1320.11.odt 2/4 application and directed the respondent/plaintiff to send the document to the Stamp Collector, Bhandara for ascertaining the stamp duty along with penalty and make the necessary compliance. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court should have rejected the document being inadmissible as it was compulsorily registrable. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments reported in 1987 Mh. L. J. 982, 1977 Mh. L. J. 174 and 1999 (1) Mh.L J. 37 to substantiate his submission that the proceedings were not governed by the Rent Control Order. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decisions reported in AIR 2010 Andhra Pradesh 155, AIR 1997 Rajasthan 85, 1983 Mh.L.J. 1043 and 2010 ALL MR (Supp.) 529 to substantiate his submission that the document was inadmissible in evidence and could not have been exhibited. Shri Choudhari, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submitted that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the year 1986 and the document in question was referred by the plaintiff in his evidence on affidavit on 07/01/2005 and the document was exhibited on 21/04/2006. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that an objection in regard to the admissibility of the document has to be raised at the time of exhibiting the document or during the trial and the objection could not have been raised belatedly. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the matter was fixed wp1320.11.odt 3/4 for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness on a number of occasions and with a view to delay the proceedings which were filed in the year 1986 the present application was filed by the petitioners. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the document was already exhibited on 21/04/2006. The question of admissibility or inadmissibility of the document would have been decided even at the conclusion of the trial. Though the petitioner had not raised an objection at the time of exhibiting the document, the petitioner had raised the objection during the trial and the trial Court could have decided the objection at the time of hearing, as the document was already exhibited and the question about its admissibility could have been decided at a subsequent stage also. The trial Court was however not justified in observing in paragraph 18 of the order that the document could be read in evidence. This Court has held in the judgment reported in 2010 ALL MR (Supp.) 529 that even if the document is marked as exhibit, it cannot be read in evidence, if it is otherwise inadmissible in evidence. Hence, the question of the admissibility of the document produced by the respondent is kept open and the trial Court is directed to take further steps in the trial. The question of rejection or otherwise of the document produced by the respondent can be considered at the time of hearing of the suit. wp1320.11.odt 4/4 It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioners are trying to delay the proceedings which are filed as early as in the year 1986 by moving one application after another and the matter has reached this Court for the third time after 2006 and in such circumstances, this Court may direct the trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously. The trial Court is therefore directed to decide the suit as early as possible and positively within a period of six months from the date of this order. Hence, with the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of keeping the point in regard to the admissibility of the document open and to be decided at the time of hearing of the suit. No order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE