1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5704/2011 (DILIP SHRIKRISHNA PARALKAR VERSUS BHOLANATH SHRICHARAN SAHU) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri I.J. Damle, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 5 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 13.09.2011, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for de-exhibiting the documents at Exhibit 73, 74 and 75. It is necessary to note that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present when the documents at Exhibit 73, 74 and 75 were exhibited during the examination of the witness of the plaintiff. After the witness of the plaintiff left, the petitioner-defendant filed the application for de-exhibiting the documents on the ground that they were the xerox copies and were not admissible in evidence. The trial Court, however, rejected the application on the ground that there was no need to de-exhibit the documents as the question about the admissibility of the documents could be considered at the later stage and even if the documents are exhibited, they would not be admissible if the petitioner is able to substantiate that aspect. 2 There is nothing wrong with the order of the trial Court rejecting an application for de-exhibiting the documents at Exhibit 73, 74 and 75. The trial Court rightly held that the question of admissibility, genuineness and proof of the documents could be considered at the time of hearing of the suit. No prejudice could be caused to the petitioner by the impugned order dated 13.09.2011 and it cannot be said that the impugned order is either illegal or perverse. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE