1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.517 OF 2009 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.36 OF 2003 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.860 OF 1999 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3993 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO.517 OF 2009 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.36 OF 2003 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.860 OF 1999 Nevile Minocher Batiwala .... Appellant V/s. Saber Bomi (Bomy) Daruwala ..... Respondent Mr.D.H.Mehta a/w Smt.Preeti Gada, for the appellant. Mr.Rajesh Shah a/w Nilesh Modi, Yogesh Tikam, i/by Rustamji & Ginwala, for the respondent. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, & R.V.MORE, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2009 P.C. 1. In our view, the impugned order needs no interference at our end, as it is an interlocutory order in a pending suit for exhibiting certain documents. It is clarified that simply because documents are exhibited, it would not mean that the contents of the documents are proved and the defendant will have to prove the contents of the 2 documents in case he is required to prove the same. The said question is left to the discretion of the learned Single Judge at the time when the suit is decided. We do not want to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in view of the fact that no rights of the parties are decided in any manner. It will be open to the appellant to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge in appeal, if he is required to file such appeal against the ultimate decree passed by the Trial Court taking the point that the documents in question ought not to have been exhibited. 2. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 3. In view of the disposal of the appeal, notice of motion does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( R.V.MORE, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)