1 wp 9526.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9526 OF 2011 Kashinath Punda Suvarnakar and others .. Petitioners Versus Suryakant Kallappa Kokalge and others .. Respondents Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 12TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . Shri Gunale, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that after the plaintiffs and defendants both had closed their evidence, the plaintiffs had filed an application for additional evidence which came to be allowed. Thereafter, the present petitioners also filed an application calling for the original record i. e. the original register of 7/12 extract with the Talathi, Gharani. According to the learned counsel, the Trial Court erroneously rejected the said application. The petitioners have 2 wp 9526.11 every right to adduce evidence in respect of the same. The learned counsel submits that the Court has erroneously observed that the petitioners can obtain the record. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the order. The 7/12 extracts are public documents and are directly admissible in the evidence being a public record. The petitioners have right to obtain certified copy. The Court has observed the same. No purpose would be served by calling the record. The learned counsel submits that the Talathi had given wrong entry which was challenged and said entry was set aside. The petitioners can place the relevant order and their certified copies on record which would be directly admissible in the evidence. 3. In the light of above, no case for interference is made out in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11