1 WP 8566.2010 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8566 OF 2010 Prayagbai W/o Ganpati Mene Age : 58 Years, Occ. Agril., R/o : Girgaon, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli. ..... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Yeshodabai W/o Piraji Mene Age : 68 Years, Occ. Agril., R/o : Girgaon, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli. 2. Prayagbai W/o Sakharam Mene Age : 63 Years, Occ. Agril., R/o : Girgaon, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli. ..... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.R.Bagal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.P.Katneshwarkar, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14/06/2011 2 WP 8566.2010 - ( J ) ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The Petitioner assails the order passed by the learned trial Court below Exh. Nos. 78,79 and 81, thereby refusing to exhibit the documents as prayed by the defendant. 3. Mr. S.R.Bagal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts have mis-construed the earlier applications and the orders. The documents which are sought to be exhibited are the public documents. During the course of arguments, Mr. Bagal, the learned counsel submits that he would restrict the application only to the extent of document at Sr.No. 3 i.e. mutation entry no.922 and the document at Sr. No. 5 mutation entry no. 1562. These documents be exhibited being public documents. 4. Mr. Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 opposes the arguments and supports the Order and submits that as the earlier application was rejected, this application is not maintainable. 5. The documents mentioned at Sr. Nos. 3 and 5 of the list as 3 WP 8566.2010 - ( J ) annexed at page no. 29 of the present compilation are the documents of mutation entry nos. 922 and 1562. These documents are public documents. They being the certified copies of the public documents, are directly admissible in evidence. As the arguments are restricted to these two ( 2 ) documents, the order in respect of the other documents is not being considered. 6. If the plaintiff has not cross examined the defendant on these two ( 2 ) documents, the plaintiff is at liberty to cross examine the defendant in respect of these two ( 2 ) documents only. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The certified copies of the documents i.e. mutation entry nos. 922 and 1562 be exhibited. Rule is accordingly made partly absolute. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 8566.2010 - ( J )