1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7266/2009 Shri Shriramavtar Rambharose Chorsiya Age 58 years, Occupation-Business, Resident of : Shivaji Nagar, Varangaon road, Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1] Shri Subhash Maheshprasad Chorsiya Age 60 years, Occupation-Business 2] Shri Santosh Maheshprasad Chorsiya Age 43 years, Occupation-Business 3] Shri Deepak Subhash Chorsiya Age 35 years, Occupation – Business 4] Shri Vinesh Subhash Chorsiya Age 28 years, Occupation-Business 5] Sau Bhanumati Subhash Chorsiya Age 53 years, Occupation-Household 6] Sau Sunita Santosh Chorsiya Age : 38 years, Occupation-Household All residents of : Shivaji nagar, Varangaon Road, Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. 7] Shri Sunil Mashprasad Chorsiya Age 43 years, Occ-Service R/o Sutar Galli No.1 2 Building No.25, Dhan Bhavan, Mumbai – 4 8] Sau Sushila Kishanlal Chorsiya Age 53 years Occupation-Household Resident of : 1st Floor, Tiwari Building, Near D.L.School, Shivaji nagar Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. 9] Sau Anita Ramesh Chorsiya Age 48 years, Occupcation-Household Resident of : Near Narsinh temple At Post Baghna Nimach, Madhya Pradesh 10] Sau Saroj Dashrath Chorsiya Age 46 years, Occupation-Household Resident of : Room No.43, Plot No.51 Road No.6/7 Ghatkopar West, Mumbai. .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri Mukul Kulkarni,Advocate for petitioner Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar ,Advocate for respondents No.1 to 7 & 10. Respondents 1 to 6 & 8 served. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 13/8/2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1] Heard the learned counsels for the parties. The learned counsels for the parties agree that the matter can be disposed of at this stage. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is heard finally by consent of learned counsels for the 3 parties. 2] The only question which is raised in this Petition is whether the trial Court by its order dated 4/9/2009 was right in not marking the document which is titled as "Wataniche Smarnarth Tipan". In para 4 of the impugned order, the trial Court has recorded that it is an admitted fact that the document was executed, however, the dispute is about its admissibility. Shri Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the said finding and says that when the document itself is not admissible in evidence, the question of marking it as Exhibit, does not arise. 3] If the execution of the document is admitted, the same can be marked as Exhibit. However, the question of its admissibility in evidence is always open and hence the trial Court ought to have marked the document as Exhibit leaving the question of its admissibility open to be agitated by the parties which shall be considered at the time of deciding the suit. 4] In view of above, the instant Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 4/9/2009 passed below Exh.1 in Regular Civil Suit No.97/06 is hereby quashed and set aside. The trial Court is directed to mark the document as Exhibit and it is made clear that merely marking of the document as Exhibit, would not 4 amount to its admissibility in evidence and the parties can agitate this question at the time of argument. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to costs. [R. K. DESHPANDE, J.] umg/wp7266-09