1 W.P.No.5757/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2011. 1. Sambhu S/o Shravan Chaudhari, died through his legal representatives : 1-A) Prabhakar S/o Sambhu Chaudhari, Age 66 years, Occ.Business, R/o Shahada Road, Talode, Dist.Nandurbar. 1-B) Jagdish S/o Sambhu Chaudhari, Age 58 years, Occ.Business, R/o In front of Maruti Mandir, 1-C) Ramchandra S/o Sambhu Chaudhari, Age 55 years, Occ.Business, R/o Plot No.17/A, In front of S.T.Stand, Talode, Dist. Nandurbar. 1-D) Deepak S/o Sambhu Chaudhari, Age 50 years, Occ.Business, R/o In front of Maruti Mandir, Talode, Dist. Nandurbar. 1-E) Sou. Prathiba W/o Bhatu Chaudhari, Age 64 years, Occ.Household, R/o At post Akkalkuwa, Dist.Nandurbar. 1-F) Sou. Latabai W/o Ramesh Chaudhari, Age 61 years, Occ.Household, R/o Jaihind Colony, near Rana Pratap School, Devpur, Tq. and Dist.Dhule. 2 W.P.No.5757/11 1-G) Sou. Urmila W/o Suresh Chaudhari, Age 63 years, Occ.Household, R/o Galli NO.6, Near Kumbhar Khunta, In front of Tukaram School, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. 2. Ravindra S/o Sambhu Chaudhari, Age 53 years, Occ.Business, R/o S.T. Stand road, at post Talode, Dist.Nandurbar. ... Petitioners. Versus Navneetlal S/o Haraklal Wani, Age 90 years, Occ.Business, R/o Talode, Tq. Talode, Dist. Nandurbar. ... Respondent. ... Mr.A.A.Mukhedkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.R.Deshpande, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 17.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties,the petition is taken 3 W.P.No.5757/11 up for final hearing. 3. The present Respondent has filed a suit for recovery of possession and amount. The present petitioner during the course of evidence raised an objection in considering the documents produced by the witness in evidence. The learned Judge did not decide the objections on merits and observed that the parties would get an opportunity at the time of final hearing. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 4. The Court had issued the witness summons to produce the documents. The witness appeared before the Court and the documents were produced. It appears that the documents either were certified copies or photocopies. The present petitioner raised an objection for referring the said documents on the ground that they are not primary evidence but can be called as secondary evidence and no question can be asked in respect of the said documents. The trial Court did not decide the said objection on merits. The Court observed that at this stage, 4 W.P.No.5757/11 no finding can be given about the said documents and at the time of final hearing all these aspects can be considered. 5. Whether the said documents would be admissible in evidence or not is required to be decided by the Court instantly. The decision on the same can not be kept in abeyance and allow the parties to refer the documents in evidence. 6. In light of above, I quash the said order. The trial Judge shall decide the objection raised at the time of evidence of P.W.5 regarding admissibility of the documents first and then proceed further with the evidence. 7. Needless to state the parties are at liberty to take whatever steps they desire, as would be admissible in law. 8. Rule accordingly made absolute in above 5 W.P.No.5757/11 terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp575711