1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7434 OF 2011 Fr.Franklyn Mathias ...Petitioner Versus Vijaya Gangaram Darekar ...Respondent Mr.Sameer R. Bhalekar with V.S.Kapse for the Petitioner Mr.R.M.Pandey i/b. Ashutosh Shukla for the Respondent No.13. CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 15th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The petitioner filed Short Cause Suit No.1428 of 2002 in the City Civil Court at Mumbai for certain reliefs. At the stage of recording of evidence, the plaintiff’s Power of Attorney entered the witness box and filed evidence affidavit. Through his Power of Attorney, number of documents were sought to be proved. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner conceded before this Court that the learned Judge of the City Civil Court went through the evidence 2 affidavit and after hearing all the concerned advocates has passed the impugned order dated 14th August, 2011. 3. I have perused the impugned order. It is noticed that some of the documents have been exhibited, as the learned Judge came to the conclusion that those documents are proved in accordance with the provisions of law. Certain documents have not been exhibited and noting to that effect has been made. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhalekar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the suit is pending at the stage of recording of evidence and the order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, whereby exhibiting certain documents has been declined is required to be reconsidered by the court. 4. .I am not inclined to accept this submission. If the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that certain documents cannot be exhibited, it will be open for the petitioner to attend to this aspect of the matter at the stage of trial or at the stage of appeal, if he suffers. In my view, the present petition cannot be entertained as regards not marking of certain documents as exhibits. It is further clarified that if the 3 petitioner wants to prove certain documents which are not marked as exhibit, it is open for the petitioner to do it through other witnesses. 5. The petition is therefore dismissed at the stage of admission with aforesaid clarification. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)