: 1 : 8230-08-wp=.sxw USJm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8230 OF 2010 Suryakant Dalpatram Dave .. Petitioner v/s. M/s. Gesota Builders & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Avinash B. Avhas for the petitioner Mr. R.S. Datar for respondent nos. 1 and 3. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Datar waives service for respondents. By consent, taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No.553 of 1992 in the Court of learned 10th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. After the arguments of the defendants i.e. the present respondents were over, the petitioner wanted to exhibit a letter dated 6th May, 1985 purported to have been addressed by the petitioner as well as the representative of the respondents to the Income Tax Department. According to the petitioner, a certified copy of : 2 : 8230-08-wp=.sxw the said letter was shown to the witness of the defendants in the cross- examination. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted the signatures on the said letter. The petitioner on the strength of that admission wanted the learned 10th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune to exhibit the said letter. The said request was rejected by speaking order dated 9th June, 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Application at Exh.125 praying that witness summons should be issued to the appropriate Officer of the Income Tax Department to prove the said document. That application was rejected by learned Trial Judge by order dated 23rd October, 2010. These two orders are challenged in this petition. 3. A perusal of the impugned order below Exh.123 goes to show that the learned Judge declined to accept the said document and that is how the petitioner was compelled to take out another application to have witness examined to prove the said document. 4. After having perused order dated 9th June, 2010, it is clear that the witness i.e. representative of the defendants was under the cross- examination and he had tendered the signature on the said document. He states that he signed it reluctantly however, that cannot be the reason to : 3 : 8230-08-wp=.sxw deny the signature. In such a situation, the learned Judge should have encircled the said signature and exhibit it as exhibit. At the same time, admission of the said signature by itself would not mean that the petitioner is successful in proving the contents of the said document. As to how the said contents are to be proved is a different matter. 5. Hence, so far as order dated 9th June, 2010 is concerned, I am inclined to observe that the order passed is correct in principle except the fact that the signature of the partner of respondent no.1 should have been marked as exhibit. Accordingly, the said signature shall be marked as exhibit, though the stage of argument is practically over. 6. So far as the order dated 23rd August, 2010, it is required to be noted that the petitioner has already closed his case so far as recording of evidence is concerned. The matter is at the stage of arguments. If at all, the petitioner wanted to examine some witness on his behind, it was necessary for the petitioner to make an application to the concerned Court requesting therein that the earlier order of closure of evidence on behalf of the petitioner plaintiff be set aside and petitioner plaintiff be permitted to examine some witnesses. Of course for this, petitioner will have to give : 4 : 8230-08-wp=.sxw good reasons. Without making such application, the petitioner chose to file application at Exh.125 praying for issuance of witness summons. The Course adopted by the petitioner was totally incorrect. Learned Trial Judge dismissed the said application by order dated 23rd August, 2010. No infirmity is observed. Hence, no interference is required so far as the order dated 23rd August, 2010. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, petition is disposed by passing following order. ORDER (i) No interference is required in the impugned order dated 9th June, 2010. (ii) The learned Civil Jude, Senior Division, Pune before whom the aforesaid Special Civil Suit No.553 of 1992 is pending shall encircle the signature of the partner of respondent no.1, who is respondent no.3 herein and mark that signature as exhibit. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)