1307wp3284.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3284 OF 2011. Bhausaheb H.Deshmukh ..vs.. Uttam Kaduba Jadha and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R.G.Kavimandan, Adv.for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 13th July, 2011. 1. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the two orders dated 14/7/2010 and 23/2/2011, by which the application for producing the Transfer Certificate issued by Siddharth College, Jafrabad and by the second order the application to prove the School Leave Certificate issued by Chhatrapati Sambhaji Vidyalaya, Isrul came to be rejected. 2. In so far as the first application is concerned, the same is filed on the basis that the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Reg.Civil Suit No.78 of 1999, was under an impression that the said document has already been exhibited. However, on coming to know that it has been marked as an Article, the petitioner wanted to lead evidence to prove the same. In so far as the School Leaving Certificate is concerned, the petitioner sought to prove the same so as to prove his date of birth. 1307wp3284.11.odt 2 3. In so far as the first application is concerned, the Trial Court held that what has been marked as Article ‘A’ is not the Transfer Certificate issued by Siddharth College, Jafrabad but the School Leaving Certificate issued by Chhatrapati Sambhaji Vidyalaya, Isrul and that during the recording of evidence of the petitioner, the objection was taken by the other side to the exhibition of the document which objection was sustained and hence, the said document was marked as an Article. 4. The Trial Court also took into consideration the fact that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a pursis for closing his evidence on 13/1/2009 and thereafter after a period of seven months i.e. on 7/8/2009, the above application came to be filed. By that time the defendants had already completed their evidence. 5. In my view, the plaintiff having not taken the opportunity to prove the document at the time of his evidence, now cannot be permitted to do so in the context of the fact that the defendants have already completed their evidence. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2009 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 445 in the matter of Shantibai K.Vardhan and ors. ..vs.. Meera G.Patel and anr. In my view, considering the fact situation in the present case, the said judgment would have no application since in the said judgment the fact situation was that the defendants had earlier made statement that they did not want to lead evidence and thereafter they had applied for leading evidence which was permitted. 7. In the instant case, as mentioned herein above, the 1307wp3284.11.odt 3 plaintiff has already closed his evidence and the objection to the exhibition of the document had been taken when the same was sought to be produced by the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute