1 W.P.No.7674/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7674 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.H.V.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.10.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The document was produced by the Respondent. The same was insufficiently stamped. The said document was impounded. Initially it was marked as an Article. Subsequently, the same was given Exh.96 inspite of the objection of the petitioner. The said order is assailed in the present petition. 3. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court could have postponed the decision on the said objection and that is the correct practice as has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Naginbhai P.Desai Vs. Taraben 2 W.P.No.7674/11 A. Sheth" reported AIR 2003 Bombay 192. The learned counsel further contends that the document is styled as agreement of sale but the contents therein does not show the document as per its nomenclature. The said document is got proved by a blind witness. The learned counsel further submits that the said document can not attract presumption U/s 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. 4. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Naginbhai P. Desai Vs. Taraben A. Sheth" referred supra lays down a word of caution that is the manner in which an objection about exhibiting the document is to be dealt. However, if the objection is decided at the time of evidence, the said order would not become an order without jurisdiction nor would render the said order illegal on that count. The Court has observed that the said document is more than 30 years old. If the document is coming from proper custody and 30 years old then presumption about its execution would arise though the contents are required to be proved. The evidential value of the said document can be considered after all the parties have led their evidence. Even the petitioner has an opportunity to disprove the said document. 5. In view of the above conspectus of the matter, no case for 3 W.P.No.7674/11 interference is made out. As such the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.03.10.2011. asp/office/wp7674.11 4 W.P.No.7674/11