1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4282 OF 2009 Ganpati Ramchandra Kadam ...Petitioner vs. Maruti Bali Dine & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Bhushan Walimbe i/b Ms Preeti Walimbe for the petitioner Mr.Deepak More with Mr.Rakesh Patil for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner had produced on record the certified copies of the sale deeds dated 26 th December 1966 and 17 th July 1967. An application was made by the petitioner at Exh.164 seeking permission to produce the said original sale deeds on the ground that the documents were filed in another proceedings, and on 30 th March 2009, the petitioner has obtained custody of the said documents. The said application has been rejected by the trial court by the impugned order. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the certified copies of the said documents were already placed on record. In fact, the application made by the respondent at exh.81 praying that the said 2 certified copies cannot be read in evidence has been rejected by the trial court. He, therefore, submitted that the application ought to have been allowed. 3 The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. He submitted that in the suit of the year 1998, the petitioner had made an attempt to produce a document after final arguments were concluded and therefore the learned trial Judge was justified in rejecting the application. He submitted that no interference is called for. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is an admitted position that that the certified copies of the two sale deeds the originals of which were sought to be produced are already on record. In fact, an application was made by the respondent no.1 at Exh.81 praying that the said documents cannot be read in evidence. The said application has been rejected by the trial court by order dated 6 th March 2006. 5 Another application was made by the petitioner at Exh.107 praying that the certified copies of the two sale deeds produced along with list of documents at Exh.48 be exhibited. An order was passed by the trial court on the said application directing that the said application will be considered at the time of final hearing of the suit. 3 6 The certified copies of the two sale deeds were admittedly on record of the suit. The prayer made in the application at Exh.162 is that production of the original sale deeds be allowed and the sale deeds be exhibited. 7 As the certified copies of the original sale deeds which are sought to be produced were already on record, there was no justification for the trial court to reject the prayer for production of the documents. Whether the said documents can be exhibited or not is an issue which will have to be considered by the trial court independently. 8 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 2 nd April 2009 is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is permitted to produce the original sale deeds dated 26 th December 1966 and 17 th July 1967. ii)The issue whether the said documents can be exhibited will be decided by the trial court in accordance with law. iii)Writ Petition is partly allowed to aforesaid extent. JUDGE