1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2750 OF 2009 Arvind V. Govande ...Petitioner vs. Smt.Leela Purandare ...Respondent Mr.S.G.Deshmukh for the petitioner Mr.A.M.Joshi for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 24 th November 2008 passed by the trial court pending the suit filed by the petitioner. The said order has been passed by the trial court on the objection raised by the petitioner for exhibiting the documents tendered in evidence by the respondent. The real dispute was as regards the documents which are described in paragraph (5) of the impugned order. It must be stated here that the objections raised were twofold. First is that the said documents are inadequately stamped and the second objection is that the documents required compulsory registration. 2 2 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The disputed documents are in the nature of the alleged deeds of partnership executed on stamps of denomination of Rs.100/- each. Considering the date on which the documents have been alleged executed, the documents appear to be duly stamped as deeds of partnership. Therefore, there does not appear to be any valid dispute regarding insufficiency of stamps as regards the said documents. As regards the second objection in respect of non registration of documents is concerned, in view of decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hemdendra Rasiklal Ghia Vs. Subodh Mody [2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 886], the said objection will have dealt with by the trial court at the time of final hearing of the suit. The trial court will have to make a note of the said objection and will have to decide the same in accordance with the aforesaid decision. 3 The impugned order stands modified in above terms. Petition is disposed of. 4 It is clarified that even the document at Exh.86 being the deed of partnership dated 23 rd November 1988 will be governed by this order. JUDGE