1 wp 8211.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8211 OF 2011 Kausalyabai Devidas Dikhule .. Petitioner Versus Gayabai Rangnath Bilore .. Respondent Shri Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 12TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner impugns the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application for impounding the documents i. e. Exhibit 71 and 75, the copies of the unregistered partition deed. The said application is rejected on the ground that the said documents are unregistered, so cannot be impounded. The petitioner has assailed the said order. 2. Shri Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the documents are unregistered, still there is no impediment for impounding the document under the provisions 2 wp 8211.11 of Sec. 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act. The provisions of the Sec. 17 of the Registration Act and Sec. 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act are distinct and separate. Even if a document is unregistered, it can be used for collateral purpose in view of the Sec. 49 of the Registration Act. But document insufficiently stamped cannot be read in the evidence. There was no impediment for the Trial Court to allow the application. 3. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that even otherwise the said documents could not have been impounded. The said documents are not the original and those are merely copies. The said documents are exhibited only for the purpose of identification. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Gayabai Hemlal Jadhav Vs. Hiraman reported in 2011 (4) Mh. L. J. 798. 4. The ground on which the application of the petitioner is rejected i. e. the documents being unregistered is not sustainable. There is no impediment to impound the document which is unregistered. However, it appears that the said documents sought to be impounded is not the original and it is merely a copy. In view of the judgment of learned Single Judge of this 3 wp 8211.11 Court in a case of Gayabai Hemlal Jadhav Vs. Hiraman referred supra, even otherwise said document cannot be impounded being a copy. 5. In view of the above no case for interference is made out in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. At this stage, Shri Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may call for the original and file an application for impounding. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that now he cannot avail of this remedy in view of rejection of the application. 7. No such application of calling the original is before the Court. 8. The matter is yet pending with the Trial Court. The petitioner may take steps as are available under law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11