1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8094 OF 2009 Dinkar Uttam Patil age 54 years, occ. agril. r/o Indave, Tq. Sakri Dist. Dhule .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 Babulal s/o Sitaram Patil age 64 years, occ. pensioner r/o 12, Saraswati Housing Society Colony Near Giri Vihar, Nandurbar. 2 Ramdas Sonu Desale age 74 years, occ. agri., r/o Kasare, Tq. Sakri Dist. Dhule. 3 Ramdas Fakira Sonawane age 56 years, occ. agri r/o Malpur, Tq. Sakri Dist. Dhule. 4 Uttamrao Ratan Patil age 79 years, occ. agril r/o Indave, Tq. Sakri Dist. Dhule. 5 Shri Shrish J. Bhamre age 57 years, occ. advocate r/o Sanjay Society, Opp. Osmanpura Police Station Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS 2 Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate holding for Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate for respondent no. 5. Respondent no.4 – dead. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 4 th MAY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner during the conduct of proceeding on 25-8-2009 refusing to to put exhibit on a document is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. 4 It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects of the matter at this stage. Suffice it to note that a document namely proceeding book has been placed on record by one S.T. Bhamre. Said document was not exhibited at the relevant time. Application was therefore made by the 3 petitioner for putting exhibit to the document while another witness by name Dinkar Patil, petitioner herein was being examined before the court. The court has turned down the request on the ground that the document has not been exhibited during examination of one Mr. Bhamre who was already examined. On perusal of deposition of said witness it transpires that he has stated about the writing of the document by one Vasantrao Desale. He has identified his handwriting also. He has further stated in his deposition that the contents of the proceeding book are in his handwriting and the contents are as per the business transacted. He has further identified the signatures of those persons who were present in the meeting and have put their signatures below the contents written in the proceeding book. Contentions stated by said witness in paragraph no. 12 are sufficient to exhibit the document. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that his clients are seriously disputing authenticity and correctness of the document. Documents referred to in paragraph no. 12 of the deposition of Mr. Bhamre has not been admitted by the respondents. Respondents have liberty to raise all their contentions in respect of the disputed documents and the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner would be bound to consider those contentions. Merely because the document is exhibited and taken on record does not mean that its probative value is accepted. The parties are 4 free to raise their objections in respect of authenticity and correctness or genuineness of the document and the authority dealing with the matter would be bound to consider those objections and form opinion and deal with the matter accordingly. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision rendered by this court in the matter of Bama Kathari Patil vs. Rohidas Arjun Madhavi and another reported in 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 752. This court while dealing with the similar issues has observed as below : . Exhibiting of a document is an administrative act. A document which is produced in court is ordinarily exhibited only after its proof. But exhibiting a document does not mean that the document is proved and non-exhibiting a document does not mean that the document is not proved. A document is required to be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. Merely for administrative convenience of locating or identifying a document, it is given an Exhibit number in courts. Exhibiting a document has nothing to do with the proof though, as a matter of convenience, only the proved documents are exhibited. Since the document in question has been exhibited after the cross examination of the plaintiff, it is open to the petitioner / defendant to contend at the stage of arguments that the document (agreement) though exhibited has not been proved by the plaintiff in accordance with law. . Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the opinion that there can be no impediment in directing the Assistant 5 Charity Commissioner to put exhibit on the document. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner would take into account the principle laid down in the reported judgment referred to above while dealing with the issue. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on 25-8-2009 in enquiry no. 889/2006 is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp8094.09.odt