1 wp11667.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11667 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, A.G.P. for respondent no.3/State. Heard Advocate Mr. S.P. Deshmukh for petitioners. Contention is, after the petitioners-defendants recorded part of their evidence, documents are allowed to be produced. The documents are not for cross examination and attention is invited to application Exhibit-196 for the said purpose. 2. Trial Court has found all the documents to be the public documents. It has also found substance in the contention of the respondent-plaintiff that the documents are concerned with the present petitioners and has recorded the statement of learned counsel for plaintiff that documents were being produced for cross examination of witness of defendants before the trial Court. 2 wp11667.10 3. It is apparent that the documents could have been shown directly to the witnesses and no prejudice is caused to the petitioners-defendants due to the permission given by the trial Court. 4. Learned Counsel has tried to urge that documents produced are not relevant, however, no such stand was taken in reply filed in the trial Court. 5. Presently the trial Curt has only permitted production of documents. Hence I am not in inclined to interfere in the Petition. Writ Petition is rejected. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 10.01.2011 gas/wp11667.10