1 wp2976.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2976 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. N.K. Kakade, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2011 Respondent-defendant examined son of deceased attesting witness, who identified signature of his father on an agreement for sale. Because of that identification, the document which was given article number has been exhibited. This order dated 28.02.2011 giving it exhibit number is assailed by the petitioner-plaintiff. 2. Trial Court has expressly recorded that mere exhibition of document does not mean that the document is proved. Trial Court has also noted that the document as filed is more than 30 years old. 3. Advocate Mr. Kakade has raised several 2 wp2976.11 contentions. However, I find that question whether contents of document are proved or not, what is effect of attestation of such document in law and whether such identification of signature is sufficient to prove attestation itself, are the issues which the petitioner-plaintiff has to argue before the trial Court. 4. At present, I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, with liberty to petitioner to challenge the order after suit is finally decided, the present Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2976 .11