: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4291 OF 2009 Chhaya Prakash Warekar ... Petitioner V/s. Ashok Prabhakar Warekar ... Respondents Mr.P.R. Naidu for Petitioner Mr.Deepak Chitnis for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 9TH JUNE, 2009 P. C.: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the City Civil Court directing the Petitioner who is the plaintiff before the City Civil Court to endorse the documents produced by the plaintiff in accordance with Order 13 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. Order 13 Rule 4 envisages that any document which is admitted in evidence shall be endorsed with the following particulars: (a) the number and title of the suit, (b) the name of the person producing the document, vss : 2 : (c) the date on which it was produced, and (d) a statement of its having been so admitted; After such endorsement is made it has to be signed or initialled by the Presiding Officer. 3. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff contends that it is for the Presiding Officer to make such endorsements as are required under Order 13 rule 4 and not for the plaintiff to do so. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Bama Kathari Patil v/s. Rohidas Arjun Madhavi & Anr., 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 752; Sunil Tukaram Bharadkar vs. Santosh Gopichand Rane, 2006 (5) Bom.C.R. 237; Jyoti w/o Vasantrao Butle v/s. Varsha Aniruddha Bansod, 2009(1) Mh.L.J. 335; Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia v/s. Subodh Mody, 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 886. These judgements merely state the law with regard to the admissibility of the documents and proof of documents. There is no observation in these judgments as to whether the endorsement has to be made by the plaintiff or the Presiding officer under Order 13 Rule 4. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court has directed the Petitioner to make the endorsements required under Order 13 Rule 4, especially to ensure that the documents are not misplaced. Apart from this, the learned Judge has stated that after such endorsements are made, it would be for him to sign these documents. 4. In my opinion, the order of the learned Judge cannot be faulted except to the extent that he has directed the plaintiff to make such endorsements in accordance with Order 13 Rule 4 on all the documents. The requirement of Order vss : 3 : 13 Rule 4 is that the endorsement shall be made only on such documents which have been admitted in evidence. It is only when such documents are admitted, it would be necessary for the Petitioner to make the endorsement on the document and thereafter for the learned Judge to initial the same. By the Bombay High Court amendment to Order XIII Rule 4(1) a proviso has been inserted under w hich in proceedings in the City Civil Court, Bombay the Principal Judge can authorise an officer of the Court to sign or initial such endorsements. 5. As regards those documents which have not been admitted that it would be prudent for the plaintiff i.e. the Petitioner to give a list of such documents with their description and to paginate those documents in order to facilitate smooth progress of the proceedings in Court. 6. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. The Petitioner shall endorse the documents which have been admitted. These documents shall then be initialled by the learned Judge or as provided in the amendment to Rule 4 by an officer deputed by the Court. 7. Petition disposed of accordingly. vss