1 W.P.No.4414 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4414 OF 2011 1. Mohammad Ashfaque s/o Mohammed Siddique Motiwala, Age 32 years, Occ. Business, r/o Memon colony, Opp. Athithi Hotel, Jalna Road, Aurangabad 2. Mohammed Siddique s/o Haji Jan Mohammed Motiwala, Age 61 years, Occ. Business r/o Memon colony, Opp. Athithi Hotel, Jalna Road, Aurangabad ..PETITIONERS (Original Deft.No.1 & 2) VERSUS 1. Prafulla Bhaskar Kulkarni, Age 46 yrs, occ. Business r/o 3, Shriniketan colony, Aurangabad 2. Pradeep Bhaskar Kulkarni, Age 40 yrs, Occ. & r/o as above, 3. Parasanna Bhaskar Kulkarni, Age 37 yrs, Occ. Service R/o As above 4. Smt. Vimalabai w/o Bhaskar Kulkarni, Age 75 years, Occ. Household, r/o as above ..RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 (Original Plaintiffs) 5. Parkash s/o Ramrao Bodkhe, Age 41 years, Occ. Business r/o Plot No.102-A, Ulkanagari, Garkheda, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENT NO.5 (Original deft.No.3) 2 W.P.No.4414 of 2011 Mr D.S. Bharuka, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr A.M. Dabir, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4; Mr N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for respondent no.5 CORAM : MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 22nd September, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, the petitioners/original defendants no.1 & 2 challenge the order dated 20.4.2011, passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad, below Exh.59 in Special Civil Suit No.353 of 2009, thereby exhibiting the documents which were produced by respondents no.1 to 4/original plaintiffs on Exh.40. The said suit is filed for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deed. On 7.4.2011 examination-in-chief by way of affidavit was filed and on 11.4.2011 plaintiffs remained present and verification of the affidavit was done. On the same day plaintiffs filed a list of documents along with the documents enlisted therein at sr.nos.1 to 18. It appears from the record that on that day neither the defendants nor their Advocate were present in the Court. On the same day the learned Trial Judge exhibited all the documents except sr.no.4 as Exhibits 42 to 58. The petitioners/original 3 W.P.No.4414 of 2011 defendants no.1 & 2 on the next date, i.e. on 20.4.2011 moved application praying that the documents which were exhibited be de- exhibited as the defendants were not heard and defendants object the exhibition of the documents. Respondents no.1 to 4/original plaintiffs contested the said application on the ground that the documents which are exhibited are public documents. Learned Trial Judge passed order on the same day and held that once a document is exhibited it cannot be de-exhibited and that the documents are exhibited because none for the defendants was present to take objection. 3. The application dated 7.4.2011 (Exh.B to the petition) was made for production of the documents. The prayer was made that the application be allowed and the documents placed on record be accepted. There was no prayer that the documents be exhibited and be read in the evidence. Production, acceptance and exhibition of the document are distinct stages. If a document produced by the party is accepted by the Court, it does not mean that the document is exhibited by the Court and the same can be read in evidence. 4. Learned Trial Judge, at the time of hearing the application by which the defendants have objected and requested to de-exhibit the documents ought to have given hearing on the point whether the documents are to be exhibited or de-exhibited. The view taken by the Trial Judge that once the documents are exhibited they cannot be de- 4 W.P.No.4414 of 2011 exhibited is not correct. If by error a document is exhibited, it can be de- exhibited if it is pointed out to the Court. 5. The objection raised by the defendants is required to be considered and also the plea taken by the plaintiffs that all the documents except document sr.no.4 are the public documents is also to be given a thought and, therefore, the matter needs to be remitted back to the Trial Court. It is also to be noted exhibition of the document and the acceptance of the contents of the document which is exhibited is different as later involves the appreciation of evidence. 6. In the result, the petition is partly allowed, impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted back to the Trial Court. Trial Court to hear the objections raised by the defendants on the point of exhibition of the documents and the plaintiffs are also allowed to make their submissions on the point and the Trial Court to consider and decide afresh, whether the documents being public documents can be exhibited directly without examining its author or not. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 29.9.2011. 7. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) amj/wp4414.11