1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5561 OF 2009. RAMSHARAN BABURAMJI KANOJIYA, SUBHASH ROAD, NAGPUR. .. VERSUS .. (1) THE EMPRESS MILLS, NAGPUR & (2) MAHARASHTRA STATE TEXTILE CORPN.LTD., THR. CHAIRMAN/ MANAGING DIRECTOR. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.A.Kalbande, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : JANUARY 19, 2010. 1. This petition by plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 966 of 2006 before learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur is directed against orders passed by learned Judge below Exh.89, filed by defendant seeking direction to the plaintiff to file originals and below Exh.94, whereby the learned Judge refused to entertain a review. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner sought to file certain documents. A notice to admit those documents was given to the defendant and the defendant admitted those documents and they were, accordingly, marked as Exhs. 67 to 75. The defendant thereafter woke up and filed an application at Exh.89 seeking that the documents may be de-exhibited. The learned Judge passed orders thereon, directing the parties to submit 2 originals. Originals, according to the petitioner, are not in the custody of the petitioner, therefore, could not have been produced. Since the direction to produce originals was given and since they were not produced, it seems that the petitioner harbours an impression that the documents may not be read in evidence and this fear has driven the petitioner to this Court. 4. It is not possible to entertain the petition against fear or apprehension of the petitioner. The learned Judge would undoubtedly see that when the defendant admitted documents, which were xerox copies, it would be for the defendant to explain as to why that admission should be allowed to be withdrawn. In any case, right now, the learned Judge has not taken any steps to exclude those documents from evidence. This would be surely considered by the learned Judge in appropriate light after allowing the petitioner to explain as to why originals cannot be produced and how they are not in his custody. Therefore, petitioner’s rushing to this Court is at a premature stage and therefore, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE RR..