1 W.P. NO.1698/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1698 OF 2010 Shivlal Rajdhar Marathe, Age 67 years, Occ. Pensioner, R/o Kirti Apartment, Gondoor Road, Dhule. ... PETITIONER VERSUS Murlidhar Sitaram Patil, Age 66 years, Occ. Pensioner, R/o Mayur Colony, Plot No.35, Deopur, Dhule ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri G.S. Rane, Advocate holding for Shri M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner Shri R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent ..... CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE : 8th December, 2010 PER COURT : 1. The controversy in this petition is in respect of the document which was rejected during evidence by the 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule, by its order dated 15.1.2010, during evidence. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.273/2008 filed against the respondent, seeking damages of Rs. 1,00,000/-, for defamation. The respondent resisted the suit by filing his written statement and denied the contents of the plaint. 2 W.P. NO.1698/2010 3. The letter dated 16.7.2008 is the letter on the basis of which defamation is being claimed by the petitioner. The respondent has alleged in the written statement that the said letter is not signed by him and that the signature was allegedly scanned and thereafter with the help of computer, the said signature and the letter was printed by the petitioner. Thus, the letter dated 16.7.2008 was denied to have been executed by the respondent. 4. After the issues were framed, the witness of the plaintiff, was examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief that a copy of the letter dated 16.7.2009 was given to him by the respondent. The said letter was written by the respondent to the President of the Trust known as "Jai Gurudeo Sansthan". The copy of the said letter dated 16.7.2008 was requested to be exhibited, which prayer was rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order interalia on the ground that same was not from proper custody. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the witness had properly explained the custody of the said document as the respondent himself had given the said letter to the witness. Learned counsel for respondent has fairly stated that he would have no objection if the said document in question is marked for the purpose of identification only and is not exhibited. 3 W.P. NO.1698/2010 6. In view of the above, it would be appropriate that the trial Court after following due procedure, takes the said document on record and marks it as a document for identification. Ordered accordingly. The document allegedly being a copy of the original document, the execution of which is denied, obviously would have to be proved in accordance with law and petitioner’s prayer for marking the said document as an exhibit would stand rejected. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the petition to stand disposed of. A.A. SAYED JUDGE