wp513­11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.513 OF 2011 Ganapati Ramu Kharose & Ors .. Petitioners versus Annappa Ramu Kharose & Ors .. Respondents Mr.A.M.Shete for the petitioners. Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar for the respondents. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. 2nd MAY 2011. P.C.: . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 The petitioner impugnes the order dated 12th October 2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for exhibiting the Partnership Deed dated 19th July 1985 came to be rejected. Mr.Shete, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in not exhibiting the document dated 19th July 1985 since it was not a registered document. wp513­11.doc 2 3 Mr.Arjunwadkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the contrary submits that since the unregistered documents do not have any evidentiary value, the learned trial Judge has grossly rejected it. 4 Admittedly, the plaintiff in his evidence has referred to this document. In that view of the matter, I find that the learned trial Judge has erred in rejecting the application for exhibiting the same. Merely because it is exhibited, it is not necessary that the contents thereof are admitted in the evidence. The question regarding admissibility of the said document in evidence would always be decided at the stage of final hearing of the suit on the basis of the rival contentions raised in that respect by the parties. 5 In that view of the mater, Rule is made aboslute in terms of prayer clause (b). 6 No order as to costs. (B.R.GAVAI, J)