IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2109 of 2007 PARSURAM SHARMA Versus BARRISTER BARHAI & ORS ----------- 2. 27.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior counsel, with reference to the impugned order would submit that if the original document became available and was being filed to take on record, whose certified copy in fact has already been filed and was on record by way of Ext.3, there was no need for the court below to make such a crispy comment on the document including its validity and correctness, which could only be gone into at the stage of final argument. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the petitioner is actually aggrieved on the finding given in the impugned order with regard to those documents which according to him is wholly premature. This Court finds some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled that 30 years old document may be taken into evidence without its formal proof but then how far 2 that document will be espousing the case of the person who produces it is a matter of evidentiary value. That has to be in fact gone into at the stage when the suit will be finally decided and the judgment will be pronounced on that issue as well. Any finding recorded prior to that at interlocutory stage would only unnecessarily complicate the matter. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the petitioner should once again approach the court below which now without being influenced by it earlier order would pass a fresh order as regards admitting the document in question into evidence in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/