1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3296 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3296 OF 2010 *** 1. The defendant has filed present writ petition challenging two orders. By first order passed below Exhibit-1 on 29th October, 2009 trial Court has deleted issue No.3. By second order, passed below Exhibit-45, trial Court has accepted objection of Respondent/ plaintiff to the admissibility of Isar Pawati (Earnest note) dated 25th December, 2002 and found it not admissible in evidence. 2. Learned counsel Shri Deshmukh for petitioner contends that issue has been deleted after parties led evidence and it is, therefore, causing serious prejudice. In order to show that there are necessary pleadings, attention has been invited to paragraph No.9 of the written statement. 3. About second order, learned counsel points out that question of admissibility of document and its exhibition are two different 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3296 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. aspects and document needs to be given exhibit number so as to facilitate its appreciation by the Court of law. 4. Shri Sapkal for the Respondent/ plaintiff points out that there was no assertion in written statement of exercise of right of foreclosure and therefore the loss of title to present respondent. He also states that as alleged earnest note contains a stipulation about handing over of possession, the document is rightly found to be not admissible and as it is not admissible, no exhibit number can be given to it. He further points out that the document is not unidentifiable as in his examination in chief, Petitioner/ defendant has made express reference to it. 5. Perusal of written statement nowhere shows that after issuing legal notice dated 10th April, 1995 the petitioner/ defendant has in exercise of right of foreclosure 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3296 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. claimed acquisition of title and, therefore, loss of title to Respondent/ plaintiff. The trial Court, therefore, has correctly appreciated the situation and deleted issue No.3. 6. The earnest note dated 25th December, 2002 relied upon in later part of paragraph No.9 of written statement, again militates with exercise of alleged right of foreclosure by petitioner. If that right was already exercised, there was no question of any earnest note being executed. The contention is though document is found to be inadmissible in order to facilitate reference to it, the document ought to have been given exhibit number. Contention is misconceived. Document is on record and order passed below Exhibit-45 and impugned before this Court again expressly makes reference to that document. The document, therefore, is identifiable and can be referred to by 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3296 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. parties at any point of time, if law permits. In the circumstances, I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:23/02/2011. ans/3296