1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6170 OF 2009 Jethalal Ratanshi Patel ...Petitioner vs. The Mumbai Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Respondent Mr.Vinay Hegde for the petitioner Mr.M.M.Malvankar for B.M.C. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. An application was made by the petitioner (original plaintiff) praying that the alleged original shops and establishment certificate on record of the suit be marked as an exhibit. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected by the trial court by observing that a contention has been raised by the Advocate for the respondent that the so called original certificate was not genuine. 2 I find from the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the petitioner that what is referred to therein is alleged xerox copy of the original and in fact the affidavit proceeds on the footing that the original certificate is not on record. The original certificate will have to be proved by the petitioner in accordance 2 with law of evidence. It is not possible to find fault with the impugned order in as much as on the date on which order was passed, the document was not proved by the petitioner. Therefore, no case is made out for interference. However, it will be open for the petitioner to lead further evidence by applying for permission to record further examination in chief of the petitioner. Though the document cannot be exhibited, the petitioner cannot be prevented from adducing evidence for the purpose of proving the said document in accordance with law of evidence. 3 Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. JUDGE