CRP 197/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr OP Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr KR Surana, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4th May 2010 passed by le arned Munsiff No.4, Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Suit No.204/2006, whereby and wh ere-under Ext.2 as exhibited by the plaintiff has been impounded. A finding has also been recorded to the effect that the said document is forged, and hence has no evidentiary value. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, if the Court is of the opinion that a particular document is forged, it may keep the same in its custo dy, but at the initial stage no finding - as to whether such document is forged and what would be its evidentiary value, can be recorded, as has been done by th e learned court below in the instant case. Learned counsel, therefore, submits t hat the impugned order dated 4th May 2010 in so far it relates to the finding wi th regard to inadmissibility of the document may be set aside, keeping the same open for decision at the final stage. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, while submitting that Ext.2 is a forged document, has further submitted that certain other docume nts are also of doubtful nature. According to learned counsel, the learned Court below did not commit any illegality in keeping the document i.e. Ext.2 in its c ustody. Learned counsel fairly submits that the question of maintainability and whether the document is forged or not is the matter to be decided at the final stage of the suit. I have perused the impugned order dated 4th May 2010. It appears from th e said order that while impounding the document(Ext.2), a finding has been recor ded that the same is forged and as such is not admissible in evidence. If the le arned court below is of the prima facie view that a document is forged, it may k eep the same in its safe custody for the purpose of future course of action on t he basis of such document, without allowing the party producing the same to take it back. The stage whether the document is in fact forged and as such is not ad missible in evidence, did not come when the impugned order was passed. The said questions are required to be decided at the final hearing of the suit. In view of the above and keeping in view the submissions of learned coun sel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Court to keep Ext.2 in its safe custody and decide the question of admi ssibility of the same at the time of hearing of the suit and also to take such f urther action as is required by law. Regarding the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that there are certain other documents, which are also forged, they may file appropri ate application before the learned Court below for keeping those documents in it s safe custody and to take further action as per law. In the event of filing such application, the same shall definitely be co nsidered by the learned court below. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 1st October 2010.