1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 646 OF 2009 IN APPEAL LODING NO. 94 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1193 OF 1981 Allahabad Bank .. Appellant (Org.Deft.No.1) Vs. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. and anr. .. Respondents (Org.Plaintiffs) Mr. Kirit H. Mody i/by Deepa Kamath for appellant. Mr. Nitin Thakkar, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Snehal Shah and Ms.Sanidha Vedpathak i/by Rustamji & Giriwala for respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. February 08, 2010. P.C. 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out for condonation of delay of 270 days in filing Appeal Lodging No. 94 of 2009. The applicant-appellant is a nationalized bank. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the 2 Motion by Shri Vinayak Patil, who claims to be the Constituted Attorney of the bank and an employee thereunder. 2. Notwithstanding the explanation provided in the said affidavit for condonation of delay, we have noted that Appeal Lodging No. 94 of 2009 impugns two orders passed by the learned trial Judge. The first order is dated 10/3/2008 whereby the documents at D-6, D-7, D-8, D-9 and D-10 were marked as Y-4, Y-5, Y-6, Y-7 and Y-8 respectively by upholding the objection raised by the plaintiffs. Similarly objections were also upheld by the subsequent order dated 19/3/2008 and the documents were marked Y-10, Y-11 and Y-12 respectively. A third order came to be passed on 25/3/2008 by the learned trial Judge. An application was moved by the bank for leave to examine another witness for the purpose of proving the documents. The said application was allowed only in respect of the documents marked for identification as Y-1, Y-2 and Y-9 with a further clarification that the defendant shall be permitted to prove only these three documents. All these orders are not appealable and our view is also supported by a recent Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Hemdendra Rasiklal Ghia vs. Subodh Mody [2008(6) Mh.L.J. 886]. The Full Bench noted that an order ruling on the issue of admissibility of 3 evidence should be as brief as possible since no appeal lies against such order and it is not a judgment. In our opinion, the impugned orders do not fall within the ambit of Clause 15 of Letters Patent of this court as well. 3. Hence, the Notice of Motion is dismissed. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)