1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6565 OF 2009 Miss Sneha Chandrakant Joshi @ Mrs. Sheha Ajit Dhobale. .. Petitioner/ Original Plaintiff Vs Mrs. Shailaja Ramchandra Kulkarni & Anr. Respondents Original Defendants -- Shri Deepak M. Gupte for the Petitioner. Shri A.S. Daver along with Shri Sayeed Mulani i/by M/s. Mulani & Co. for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATE : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. . Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the earlier date. Notice for final disposal was issued on 6th August, 2009. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff and the Respondents are the original Defendants. The Petitioner by filing this Writ Petition has taken an exception to the order dated 20th March, 2009 by which an application made by the Petitioner at Exhibit – 46 for exhibiting two documents viz. Agreement dated 4th February, 2007 and another Agreement dated 1st April, 2007 has been disposed of by directing the Petitioner to prove the said documents as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has invited my attention to the pleadings of the parties as well as affidavit in lieu of 2 examination in chief of the Petitioner. He submitted that the execution of the said documents was duly proved by the Petitioner and, therefore, the documents ought to have been marked as exhibits. He submitted that the leave and licence agreement did not require registration and on the ground of non-registration, the said document could not have been held as not admissible in evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents supported the impugned judgment and order. He submitted that in the Written Statement, the said documents have been denied and therefore, the same will have to be independently proved by the Petitioner. He submitted that only on the basis of the statements made in the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the Petitioner, the documents cannot be held as proved and, therefore, no interference is called for. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The first document about which there is a dispute is the Agreement dated 4th February, 2007 and the second document is the Agreement for Sale dated 1st April, 2007. As far as the Agreement for Sale is concerned, the Petitioner has paid the deficit stamp duty of Rs.37,625/- after the same was impounded. 4. As far as the pleadings are concerned, a reference to the first document dated 4th January, 2007 ( 4th February, 2007 ) is in Paragraph 2 of the Plaint. Paragraph 3 of the Written Statement reads thus:- “3. It is true that the suit flat is owned by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. however, it is denied that the said flat is let out by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to the Plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs.6500/- vide Rent Agreement dated 4/01/2007 from 15/02/2007 and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 accepted the deposit of Rs.50,000/- by cheque from 3 Plaintiff as stated in Para (2) of the plaint.” 5. As far as the second document dated 1st April, 2007 is concerned, the same has been referred to and relied upon in Paragraph 5 of the Plaint. As far as the said document dated 1st April, 2007 is concerned, in the Written Statement, the execution thereof has been denied and it is contended that the Agreement is illegal and bogus and the same has been forged by the Petitioner. 6. The Petitioner has filed the affidavit in lieu of examination-in- chief. As far as the first document is concerned, the Petitioner stated that though the document was executed on 4th February, 2007, due to inadvertent error, the date of 4th January, 2007 has been mentioned therein. The Petitioner identified the signature of the witnesses as well as the signature of the 2nd Respondent. As far as the second disputed document is concerned, the Petitioner identified the thumb impression of the 2nd Defendant. The Petitioner identified the signature of the witnesses on the said document. The Petitioner identified her own signature on both the documents. The Petitioner has deposed to the contents of both the documents. 7. Thus, on plain reading of the deposition ( affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief of the Petitioner ), the exeuction of both the documents was duly proved by the Petitioner. Once the execution of the documents is duly proved, the same ought to have been marked as exhibits. Once a document is properly admitted in evidence, the contents thereof are required 4 to be read in evidence. However, the issue regarding evidenciary value of the said documents as well as the proof of the contents thereof always remains open which will have to be decided by the trial Court at the time of disposal of the suit. 8. Hence, the petition succeeds and I pass following order. (a) The impugned order dated 20th March, 2009 is quashed and set aside. (b) The Application at Exhibit – 46 is allowed and the trial Court is directed to admit the said two documents in evidence. (c) It is made clear that though the documents will have to be read in evidence, the issue of evidenciary value of the said documents is expressly kept open and all the contentions in that behalf will have to be dealt with by the trial Court while finally deciding the suit. (d) The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. JUDGE ash