1 WP NO.8303/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8303 OF 2010 1. Gulab s/o Satwaji Sathe, Age: 85 years, Occu: Nil., 2. Ratan s/o Satwaji Sathe, Age: 78 years, Occu: Pensioner, Both r/o.Guruwar Peth, Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Prabhu s/o Nama Gavali, Age: 66 years, Occu: Labour, 2. Manik s/o Prabhu Gavali, Age:46 years, Occu: Labour, (3. Sham s/o Prabhu Gavali, Age: 41 years, Occu:labour.) ( Dismissed as per order dt.30.9.2011) 4. Kalyan s/o Prabhu Gavali, Age: 36 years, Occu:Labour. All r/o Guruwar Peth, Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. T.G.Gaikwad, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Deshpande, Adv., h/f Mr. C.R.Deshpande, Adv., for R.Nos.1, 2 & 4. Respondent No.3 dismissed as per order dt.30.9.2011. 2 WP NO.8303/2010 CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:NOVEMBER 11th, 2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Challenge is to exhibit the document as directed by the learned Judge by order dt.3rd August, 2010, below Exh.129. 3. Perused the order under challenge. Learned Judge found that the document tendered in the court was dated 15th Jan.,1953, and the sale deed was dated 12th June, 1991. Learned Judge referred to the construction permission dt.15th Jan.,1953, and exhibited the document in terms of Section 90 of the Evidence Act. 4. Needless to indicate, even if the document is exhibited as per Exh.129, the learned Judge shall be guided by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lekhi Baruah and others vs. Sri Padma Kanta Kalita and others ( AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT) 1253) and particularly, paragraph no.15 thereof which reads as under: " Section 90 of the Evidence Act is founded on necessity and convenience because it is extremely difficult and sometimes not possible to lead evidence to prove handwriting, signature or 3 WP NO.8303/2010 execution of old documents after lapse of thirty years. In order to obviate such difficulties or improbabilities to prove execution of an old document, Section 90 has been incorporated in the Evidence Act, which does away with the strict rule of proof of private documents. Presumption of genuineness may be raised if the documents in question is produced from proper custody. It is, however, the discretion of the Court to accept the presumption flowing from Section 90. There is, however, no manner of doubt that judicial discretion under Section 90 should not be exercised arbitrarily and not being informed by reasons." 5. In the light of this legal position, the learned Judge, even after exhibiting the document, shall bear in mind the above mentioned principles while reading the same or appreciating the same during judgment. 6. With the above observations, writ petition disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/8303-10wp