1 wp974.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 974 of 2010 Vivek Chandanmal Jain ... Petitioner v/s. Kausar Ismail Shaikh & ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.S.Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for the respondents. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- MARCH 24, 2011. P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard by consent. 3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 5th January, 2010 vide which the learned trial Judge has given exhibit to document as exhibit A which is styled as a Kararnama. 4. The plaintiff has filed the suit for possession. The suit is resisted by 2 wp974.10.sxw the present petitioner-defendant. Alongwith an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, the respondent-plaintiff has filed a document styled as agreement dated 14th August, 1995. The petitioner has, therefore, filed an application exhibit 87 praying therein that the said document should not be exhibited. The said application is rejected. Seeking review of the said order, an application was filed. The same was rejected. Hence, the present petition. 5. The learned trial court in the order impugned has held that exhibiting of a document is an administrative act and the document which is produced in Court is ordinarily exhibited. It has further been held that exhibiting a document has nothing to do with proof. 6. The view taken by the learned trial Court is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia v/s. Subodh Mody reported in 2008 (6) Mh. L.J. has observed thus: “(i) objection to the document sought to be produced relating to the deficiency of stamp duty must be taken when the document is tendered in evidence and such objection must be judicially determined before it is marked as exhibit;” 3 wp974.10.sxw 7. It can thus clearly be seen that from the Judgment of the Full Bench that the objection to the document sought to be produced relating to deficiency of stamp duty must be taken when the document is tendered in evidence and such objection has to be judiciously determined before it is marked as exhibit. 8. Admittedly, in the present case immediately after the document is tendered in evidence, the petitioner has taken objection regarding deficiency of the stamp duty and as such the learned trial Court was bound to consider the said document judiciously before it was marked as exhibit. 9. In that view of the matter, impugned order is not sustainable in law. 10. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). It is further made clear that since this Court has already expedited the hearing of the suit, the said issue regarding the objection of the petitioner be decided within a period of one month from today. (B.R. GAVAI, J)