1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2020 OF 2011. IN SUIT NO. 672 OF 1983 Aziz Ahmed Mobin Khan .. Plaintiff Versus Mrs.Anwari Shafiq Shah & Others ...Respondents Mr. Anand Grover with Ms.Firdaus Moosa i/b. Prakash Mahadit for plaintiff. Ms.Amarjeet Kaur for defendant nos.1, 2 and 4A to 4C. CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 20th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. Affidavit in reply filed by the plaintiff is taken on record. Heard learned Counsels on both sides. This motion has been taken out by the defendants in view of order dated 5th May, 2011 passed by Honourable Mr. Justice R.M.Sawant, asking the parties to seek clarification of Order dated 24th March, 2011. I have taken up this motion for hearing as the order dated 24th March, 2011 is passed by 2 me. 2. I have perused the order dated 24th March, 2011. It is noted that the plaintiff is relying upon large number of documents which are referred to in Exhibit A and Exhibit B to this Notice of Motion. On 24th February, 2011, learned Counsel Ms. Amarjit Kaur indicated that out of so many documents on which plaintiff is placing reliance, her clients admit certain documents and they can be conveniently marked as Exhibit. Accordingly, documents specified in Annexure A to the Notice of Motion ( in all 15) came to be marked Exhibit P-1, P-2, to P-15. 3. Such of the documents which were not admitted by the learned Advocate for the defendants were marked X, X-1, X-2 upto X-15. On 24th February, 2011 certain documents were not found on record and that is now the plaintiff was not put in the witness box for the purpose of recording his examination in chief as also going through examination in chief for the purpose of ascertaining whether the documents which have been marked as X, X-1 etc be marked as Exhibit as it was obligatory upon the court to go through the 3 evidence affidavit and ascertain whether the plaintiff has given appropriate evidence to prove the documents which have been marked X, X-1 etc. 4. It must be stated that because learned Counsel for the defendant nos. 1, 2, 4a, 4b, 4c showed willingness about admitting certain documents out of the total documents which were relied upon by the plaintiff, the exercise of marking those documents as P-1 to P-15 was conducted. 5. It must be mentioned that in the order dated 24th February, 2011 in paragraph 1 following words are found: “that this job of marking of documents is over” In my view, it would be necessary to clarify at this juncture that the words “job of marking documents is over” was only for that day i.e. 24th February, 2011 and certainly the said job is not over, so far as the future time is considered. To that extent, clarification is made by this order. 6. It is in these circumstances, the plaintiff will have now to make 4 efforts before the appropriate court to submit that on the basis of the evidence affidavit, he is making a good case for proving of the documents which are marked as Exhibit X to X-15. 7. Needless to mention that if the plaintiff is unable to prove the documents through himself as per the provisions of law, it will be open for him to examine such other witness to prove the documents and if ultimately they are not proved, they will remain as documents “Not proved”. 8. With the aforesaid order, the motion stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)