1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 2539 of 2007 Balmukund and ors v. Hasanrao ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr Mohta, Advocate for petitioner. Mr Anil Mardikar, Adv for respondent. Coram : R.V. More, J. Dated : 28th February 2008 1. Heard. Petitioner who is original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 202 of 1998 objected for exhibiting documents viz. Statements recorded by Circle Inspector. The Trial Court, relying on the provisions of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, concluded that the said documents being public document, exhibited the same at exhibits 78 and 79. 2. Mr Mohta submits that Circle Inspector could not have recorded the statements as the powers are vested with the Naib Tahsildar to record statements and that power cannot be delegated to Circle Inspector. He, therefore, submitted that the statements in question cannot be read in defence. 3. Fact remains that the statements are recorded by Circle Inspector who is admittedly a public officer. 2 Issue regarding evidentiary value of these statements can always be considered at the time of final disposalo of suit. However, at this stage, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of my writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Mr Mardikar at this stage submits that respondent is 85 years old and requests for direction to the Trial Court to expedite trial. Trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously. Judge. Hsj