IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5659 OF 2008 Shri.Sampati Dinkar Jagdale ...Petitioner V/s. Shri Shridhar Gulab Jagdale & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.A.B.Avhad for Petitioner. Mr.K.B.Sonwalkar for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 31, 2009. MARCH 31, 2009. MARCH 31, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Sonwalkar waives notice for Respondents. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. This Petition under Article 227 of the : 2 : Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court dated 7th January 2008 below Exhibit 80 and dated 2nd July 2008 below Exhibit 92 in R.C.S. No.147/2008. The Trial Court allowed the Petitioner to produce Power of Attorney on record but has not accepted the request of the Petitioner to exhibit the same. The request to exhibit the same has been rejected on the finding that the Petitioner did not challenge the correctness of order dated 7th January 2008 passed below Exhibit 80 of permitting the Petitioner only to produce the document. The Trial Court has also noted that recording of evidence of Petitioner’s witness was already over and for which reason, the original Power of Attorney which is produced after that cannot be exhibited. According to the Counsel for the Respondents, the contents of the document (namely Power of Attorney) have not been proved for which reason also the same cannot be accepted. 5. Insofar as the first reason recorded by the Trial Court that the Petitioner has failed to challenge the order passed below Exhibit 80, that : 3 : stands remedied before this Court as the Petitioner is challenging that order. Insofar as the second reasoning recorded by the Trial Court that the recording of evidence of Petitioner’s witness is complete and the original Power of Attorney has been produced only thereafter, can be no basis to reject the request of the Petitioner to exhibit the document which has been referred to in the Plaint and list of documents. Moreso, when the examination-in-chief makes reference to the said document and which statement has not been challenged in the cross-examination. The argument of the Respondents before this Court that the document cannot be exhibited, as the contents have not been proved, clearly overlooks the well established position. In that, the fact that the documents have been exhibited does not necessarily mean that the same has been proved or the contents thereof have been proved. The Trial Court may consider that matter at the appropriate stage and on appraisal of the record take the view as may be advised. In other words, in the fact situation of the present case, accepting the request of the Petitioner to exhibit the said document-Power of : 4 : Attorney ought to have been allowed while making it clear that whether the said document is admissible and whether the Petitioner has proved the contents of the said document are matters to be addressed at the appropriate stage. This Petition therefore partly succeeds on the above premiss. 6. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment and orders are modified by not only permitting the Petitioner to produce the stated document but also exhibit the said document, while making it clear that all questions about the efficacy of the said document will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 7. Petition disposed of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.