1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.676 OF 2008 M/s.J.M.Constructions .. Petitioner Versus Mrs.Arnaz Romolo Francorsi & Ors.. Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole for petitioner Mr.A.K.Abhyankar, Senior Advocate i/b. Bhalekar and Ms.Ranjana Parikh for respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24th March 2008 P.C. . The impugned order proceeds on the footing that the application preferred by the original defendant No.5 for striking part of evidence is liable to be allowed at the stage at which the matter is pending today. The order proceeds on the basis that the defendant no.5 filed this application for striking of part of evidence. The evidence is contained in affidavit 2 in lieu of examination in chief of P.W.1. That was the affidavit filed on 19th January 2007. The objection appears to be that evidence is beyond the pleadings. 2. After hearing learned Counsel for parties at some length, I am satisfied that the trial court should not have ruled upon this application at this stage. It is no as if the defendant No.5 has no opportunity to press his objections. The objections are already on record. It is only the time at which they shall be dealt with, which is the subject of dispute. Mr.Godbole learned Counsel for petitioner submits that this application should have been dealt with at the time of the judgement, inasmuch as, both sides would have raised their pleas in that behalf and it is for the court to consider them at the stage of delivery of the judgement. 3. Mr.Abhyankar, learned senior counsel, 3 appearing for defendant No.1 to 6 has no objection if the course suggested by Mr.Godbole is followed by the trial court. In such circumstances, the objections would remain on record and they shall be dealt with at the stage when the trial court delivers its final judgement in the suit. All pleas which are raised with regard to the said objection should also be dealt with and all this should be done uninfluenced by the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. With this clarification the petition disposed of. Once the court has said that the conclusion drawn in the impugned order should not be taken into consideration and rather ignored, then, needless to further state that the same is quashed and set aside. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)