1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10547 OF 2010 Laxman s/o. Arjunrao Pagare, Age 72 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. "Samadhan" Ganeshwadi, Kalyan [E], Dist. Thane. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. Rajendra s/o. Gambhirrao Lahane, Age 48 yrs., Occu. Business, 2. Ganesh s/o. Gambhirrao Lahane, Age 44 yrs., Occu. Business, Both R/o. Lahnechiwadi (Pal), Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. ....Respondents. Mr. D.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED: 3rd February, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed the suit for damages. The plaintiff had led his evidence. Thereafter, the 2 plaintiff moved an application, Exh. 39, for exhibiting the documents filed alongwith lists Exhs. 23 and 27. The Trial Judge vide order below Exh. 27 directed to exhibit documents at Sr. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of Exh. 27. The same is assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 3. Shri. D.K. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Judge has not given any reasons. The petitioner had proved the documents by adducing the evidence of plaintiff and his witnesses. The same has not been considered. Moreover, the documents filed with list Exh. 23 are not at all considered. The application at Exh. 39 was filed for exhibiting the documents alongwith lists Exhs. 23 and 27. But, the order shows that documents filed with list Exh. 23 have not at all been considered. Even the reasons are not given while not exhibiting the other documents filed with list Exh. 27. 4. Shri. Nagargoje, learned counsel for respondents submits that the Court below has properly exercised its discretion in not exhibiting the other documents as they were not proved. The documents are not proved as are required under law i.e. Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such are correctly not exhibited. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have perused the application and the impugned order. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge while passing the 3 impugned order has not at all considered the documents filed alongwith list Exh. 23. Even detail reasonings are not given. Reasons are the lifeline of any judicial order. Reasons show the application of the mind of Judicial Officer passing the said order. As no proper reasonings are given, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order and direct the Trial Judge to decide the said application, Exh. 39, filed in Special Civil Suit No. 461/2008 afresh after hearing the parties. 6. Rule is made absolute with above observations, however, with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] ssc/wp10547.10