jpc wp7727-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7727 OF 2011 Kopalam M. Mogral and others ... Petitioners Versus Globe Theaters Pvt. Ltd. and others ... Respondents Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar with Mr. K. D. Jha for the petitioners Mr. D. S. Parikh with Mr. P. M. Rustomkhan for the respondent No.1 CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 21st November, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 1st July, 2011 passed below Exh.40 in L.C. Suit No. 3988 of 1989 by the learned Judge, City Court Court, Bombay by which order, the trial Court has directed the advocate of the defendants i.e. petitioners herein, to advance arguments on the point of giving exhibits to particular documents and thereafter the issue will be decided. In so far as the documents which have been admitted, the same have been exhibited. It is in respect of the unexhibited documents, that the above course of action is directed to be followed by the trial Court. The petitioners who are defendants would, therefore, have to prove the said documents in accordance with the procedure known to law. jpc wp7727-11.sxw 2 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said documents were first required to be exhibited and the objections in respect of them could have been considered at the time of hearing of the suit. In my view, the said course of action as directed by the trial Court cannot be faulted with. The full bench of this Court in the case of Mr. Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia Vs. Subodh Mody reported in 2008 [6] All MR 352, has categorised the documents and only in respect of some categories that the full bench has ruled that the said documents could be exhibited, and the objections in respect of their admissibility can be considered at a later stage, at the hearing of the suit. In my view the course of action as directed by the trial Court cannot be said to be in violation of the full bench judgment. In fact, that is not even the case of the petitioners. It is also required to be borne in mind that the documents in question are the unadmitted documents and would therefore have to be proved. Hence no prejudice would be caused to the parties, if the course of action as directed by the impugned order is adopted. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. It is expected that the exercise as contemplated by the impugned order would be carried out by the trial Court, expeditiously. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)