1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 840 OF 2011 Shaikh Naim Shaikh Lal, R/o. Paltan, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra Through it's Collector, Hingoli Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. P.S. Agarwal, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED: 3rd February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner vide present writ petition assails the order dated 7.12.2010 passed by the Trial Judge below Exh. 108 in Special Civil Suit No. 6/2007. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed the suit for damages. The plaintiff led his evidence, thereafter filed closing pursis. After the plaintiff had led his evidence, the defendant also adduced evidence and the matter was posted for argument. At the stage when the 2 matter was posted for argument, the plaintiff filed an application for reopening the matter and for adducing further evidence of one Sunil Dattatrai Pathak, who had, according to the plaintiff, taken the photographs. The said application was resisted by the defendant. Vide the impugned order the Trial Judge rejected the said application. 3. Shri. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the brother of said Sunil Pathak was examined, who had specifically stated that Sunil Pathak had taken the photographs. The photographs are at Exh. 60. It was further contended by the learned counsel that to subserve the cause of substantial justice, the plaintiff should be allowed to adduce the evidence of the said person, who had taken the photographs. Shri. Agarwal further submitted that the defendant would not be taken by surprise as the photographs are already on record at Exh. 60. The learned counsel further contended that while passing the impugned order the Trial Judge has observed that the photographs are not proved as negatives are also not forthcoming, the photographs were taken with digital camera, as such there was no question of any negative. 4. The plaintiff had adduced his evidence and on his own volition has filed a purshis, closing his evidence. Thereafter, the defendant has also led his evidence and the matter was posted for final arguments. The defendant No. 9 had also filed written notes of arguments and thereafter, the application, Exh. 108, was filed by the plaintiff, seeking permission to 3 adduce the evidence of Sunil Pathak. 5. Perusal of the order shows that the photographs are at Exh. 60. Whether the said photographs are proved as required under law or not, would be considered by the Trial Judge at the time of final arguments after hearing the plaintiff and the other parties. The Trial Judge would take into consideration whether the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the photographs which are marked at Exh. 60. In the light of fact as contended by the plaintiff that the same are taken from digital camera and as such, no question arises of the negatives of the same. The plaintiff on his own volition has closed his evidence and the defendant has also led his evidence. No error has been committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application as it would have allowed the plaintiff to fill in the lacuna. 6. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] ssc/wp840.11