1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.4852 of 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. Heard. 2. The impugned order is of discretionary nature. The petitioner called for certain documents pertaining to the record of the Respondent Company in regard to the dealership agreement etc. It appears that the petitioner also called for certain record pertaining to dealership of other traders and, therefore, at the preliminary stage, the trial Court held that the documents need not be called as per Order XI Rule 12 of the C.P.C. The petitioner counsel would submit that there is no admission as regards the document, whereby the petitioner was appointed by the Respondent as a wholeseller for Parli-Vaijinath from 6.5.1977. This, according to him was erroneously shown as admitted position. The observations made by the trial Court at the interim stage can not be treated as final opinion and, therefore, the fact situation is clarified in this behalf. The trial Court may not consider that the petitioner had admitted the commencement of dealership at Parli Vaijinath in 1977. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.26.02.2010. asp/office/wp4852.09