1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5043 of 2007 Kazi Wakruddin Abdul Hamid & Ors. Vs. Kazi Kabiruddin Abdul Hamid & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Smt. S. W. Deshpande Adv. for petitioners. CORAM: J. H. BHATIA J. Dated: 18 th March, 2009. Inspite of service of notice none is present for any of the respondents. The notice was issued which clearly indicates that petition may be finally disposed of at the admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned orders. 2 3. On perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 40 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Murtizapur for perpetual injunction against defendants/respondents. Petitioners claim the property on the basis of three sale deeds. It appears that the sale deeds were produced before the Court. The plaintiff examined himself and in evidence he referred to the transaction about the sale deed and its contents but the sale deeds were not exhibited. Plaintiff did not examined any other witness to prove the sale deed and therefore, the sale deeds were not exhibited. Plaintiffs filed application Ex. 112 dated 12.02.2007 making a request to the trial Court to exhibit the said sale deeds and some other public documents. Application was rejected by the trial Court on 17.03.2007 in respect of the prayer for exhibiting the sale deed on the ground that no witnesses were examined to prove the sale deeds. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application Ex. 116 on 04.08.2007 seeking permission to lead evidence to prove the sale deeds. That application was also rejected on 27.08.2007 mainly on the ground that repeatedly the plaintiffs had taken 3 adjournments for leading evidence and on some occasions the adjournment was granted subject to costs but the plaintiff failed to lead the evidence. It was observed that the matter is now fixed for evidence of the defendants. Taking into consideration this conduct of the plaintiffs and the fact that the suit is pending for more than 10 years the application was rejected. Hence this petition. 4. Both the above orders are challenged in the present petition. So far as the order dated 17.03.2007 rejecting the application Ex. 112 making prayer to exhibit the sale deeds is concerned, I find no fault in that order because no witness has been examined to prove the sale deed. Merely because the documents are produced they cannot be exhibited in evidence. It is true that plaintiff had taken number of opportunities and had failed to lead evidence and as a consequence the sale deeds could not be proved. It is also true that matter is pending for last more than 12 years now. However, the plaintiff claims valuable rights on agricultural land based on the sale deeds which are duly registered. Even though it appears that the plaintiff was at fault 4 in not availing the opportunities given to him to lead the evidence, in view of the fact that the suit is still pending and the evidence of the other side is not completed, in my considered opinion if one more opportunity is given to lead the evidence it will not cause any prejudice to the other side, but if such opportunity is not given, the plaintiff is likely to lose the property. 5. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order passed below Ex. 116 on 27.08.2007 is hereby set aside. Plaintiff/petitioner is granted permission to lead evidence to prove the sale deeds, subject to depositing costs of Rs. 1000/- before the trial Court to be paid to the defendants. Amount shall be deposited within two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. 6. If the cost is deposited the trial Court shall fix the date on which the plaintiffs shall be permitted to lead the necessary evidence but no further adjournment shall be granted unless it is beyond the human control. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. In case the amount of costs is not deposited within stipulated period, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 5 Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. JUDGE svk