- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3124 OF 2010 Rajeev Bhoite .. Petitioner Vs. Bhalchandra Mohiniraj Pathak & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. V. P. Sawant i/b Mr. Nitin Dhumal, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. V. Pitre, for Respondent No.1. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : APRIL 30, 2010. P.C. : 1. This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, rejecting the petitioner’s application for de-exhibiting certain documents. 2. The petitioner was arrayed as an opponent in the proceeding before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The applicant therein had prayed for tendering secondary evidence in respect of the membership forms and some other documents, stating that the originals were not traceable. This application was opposed by the petitioner. This - 2 - application was rejected. Thus, opponent could not have tendered secondary evidence. Thereafter suddenly the originals surfaced through the Bench Clerk of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, who had stated that the documents ere found in computer section. These documents were marked as exhibits. The petitioner applied for de-exhibiting the documents which application was rejected by the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Trust submitted that as held in a decision in the case of Geeta Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State and Anr. [2009(2) Mh.L.J. 419], mere marking documents as exhibits does not make them admissible in evidence. They can be read in evidence only if they are properly proved. Therefore, according to him, merely because the documents concerned were given exhibit numbers, they need not be read in evidence and his client would prove the documents and comply with the requirement of law before they are actually considered by the Court. The apprehensions of the petitioner are thus duly taken care of. The learned counsel for the respondent states states that merely because the documents are on record, they do not become a part of the evidence. The probative value or truthfulness would be duly considered by the learned Charity Commissioner and after considering all aspects which petitioner would - 3 - raise before the Court. If the learned Charity Commissioner finds that the documents are reliable, he would act upon them. In view of this, since the apprehensions of the petitioner are unfounded, the impugned order does not call for any interference, if it is viewed in this perspective. Writ petition is therefore, disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all the objections relating to reliability of the documents, and also to respondent No.1 to examine the witnesses concerned to prove the documents. Sd/- [R. C. CHAVAN, J.]