*1* 906.wp.926.11.sxw skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 926 OF 2011 Amin Kutbuddin ..Petitioner -Versus- M/s.New Bharat Forging and Engineering Company & Ors. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Vishal Kanade i/by Akshay Ajit Shah for the Petitioner. Mr.Y.S.Bhate for Respondent No.1. ......... WRIT PETITION NO. 500 OF 2011 Shri Kutubuddin Bashiruddin & Ors. ..Petitioners -Versus- M/s.New Bharat Forging and Engineering Company & Ors. ..Respondents (Orig. Plaintiffs) -And- Amin Kutbuddin ..Respondent (Orig. Deft.No.2) .......... Mr.Surel Shah i/by Rohit Shetty for the Petitioners. Mr.Y.S.Bhate for the Respondents. .......... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY, 2011. *2* 906.wp.926.11.sxw P.C. 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith in both the petitions. Mr.Bhate waives notice for the respondent no.1 in both the petitions. Mr.Suresh Shah waives notice for respondent no.2 in writ petition no.926 of 2011. Mr.Vishal Kanade waives notice for respondent/original defendant no.2 in writ petition no.500 of 2011. 2 These writ petitions take exception to the orders passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane dated 23rd November 2010 vide which the learned Judge has, rejected the applications moved by the present petitioners challenging the exhibits granted to some of the documents which were produced for the first time along with affidavit-in- lieu of examination-in-chief, came to be rejected. 3 From the perusal of the roznama, it is revealed that on 15th July 2010, when the matter was fixed before the learned trial Court, an application for adjournment was filed by the learned counsel appearing for defendant nos.1 and 2. The said application was filed on the ground that the mother of the counsel had expired. It appears from the record that instead of deciding the said application, the learned Judge has granted exhibits to the documents on the ground that there is no objection by the defendants. *3* 906.wp.926.11.sxw 4 When an application was filed on behalf of the defendants for an adjournment on the ground that the counsel’s mother had expired, there was no question of the said defendants objecting exhibiting of the documents. Be that as it may. Since the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners fairly concedes that the learned Judge should reconsider the matter, I am not inclined to enter into the merits of the matter. However, it is difficult to understand as to what was an alarming urgency to exhibit the documents in the said case by the learned trial Judge. 5 In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 23rd November 2010 is quashed and set aside. Consequently the exhibits which are granted by the learned Judge to the documents placed on record by the plaintiffs on 15th July 2010 are also set aside. The learned Judge should reconsider the issue after considering the rival submissions made by the parties. 6 Needless to state that this Court has passed this order without considering the merits of the matter, since this Court is of the view that the procedure adopted by the learned Trial Judge was not correct. All the contentions of the rival parties are kept open. *4* 906.wp.926.11.sxw 7 Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (B.R. GAVAI, J.) -