1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1494 OF 2009 Abhijit s/o Subhash Dahatonde, Age: 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Near Shriram Chowk, Ayodhya Nagar, Vasant Tekadi, Namdeo Chowk, Ahmednagar, Dist.Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner Versus Kamal Trading Company, Ahmednagar. Through its owner/proprietor, Santosh s/o Mansukhlal Pipada, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 1322, Vanjargalli, Ahmednagar. District Ahmednagar & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Resp. No.1. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. Heard learned 2 Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent No.1. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 11-02-2009 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar below Exhibit-137 preferred by the petitioner for de-exhibiting the documents at Exhibit-50 to 126. Learned trial Court rejected the petitioner's application at Exhibit-137 stating that evidentiary value of those documents, its relevancy can be considered during the judgment after hearing the arguments of both parties. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that in view of Order 13 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned trial Court ought to have decide that application below Exhibit-137. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment in the 3 matter of Shantabai Jagannath Jaiswal and others vs. Anandibai Satyanarayan Jaiwal and others reported in 2007(1) Bom.C.R. 991. In this case, High Court held that the trial Court should decide application for exhibition or de- exhibition of documents immediately which will facilitate the party to lead evidence in support of it, if necessary. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 in support of the impugned order dated 11-02-2009 stated that the trial Court specifically considered the petitioner's application and directed that same can be considered at the time of final hearing. He submitted that it is not necessary to decide petitioner's application immediately but same can be considered at the time of final hearing. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment in the matter of Ram Rattan (dead) by legal 4 representatives vs. Bajrang Lal and others, reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1393. In this case also, Apex Court held that it is the duty of the Court to judicially determine objection of the parties before the suit is finally disposed of. 5. Considering both the judgments referred to above by the parties, it is clear that the trial Court neither rejected nor allowed the petitioner's application at Exhibit-137. The trial Court only directed that evidentiary value of those documents, its relevancy can be considered at the time of final hearing. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances in the present case, the order dated 11-02-2009 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court to decide petitioner's application dated 11-02-2009 below Exhibit-137 within one month from the receipt of 5 writ from this Court. 7. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute in above terms. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/SEP09/wp1494.09