W.P.No.10955/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10955 OF 2010 Shri Bhatu Shankar Patel ..Petitioner Versus Shri Shantilal Rikhabchand Jain and ors. ..Respondents Mr M.M.Bhokarikar, Advocate for petitioner Mr R.R.Mantri, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3, 17 to 20 and 22 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7th December 2011 PER COURT Heard. 2. The plaintiff desired during his evidence, production of certain documents by assigning reasons that plaintiff was indeed asked question concerning diary entries and whether it is in the handwriting of defendant No.14 or otherwise. 3. The plaintiff felt that production of such document is imperative and to be read in evidence. 4. Mr Bhokarikar submits, the documents sought to be produced are not placed for the first time but photostat copies thereof are on record. This fact is disputed by Mr Mantri for defendants. W.P.No.10955/2010 2 5. The production sought vide Exh.208 in Special Civil Suit No. 19/2006 rejected by the learned Court is set aside. The production is to be allowed. However, if photostat copy of particular document is not on record, learned Judge will independently take decision thereof. Production of the document by itself will not mean it is admitted in evidence or otherwise. The other procedure, if law permits, will have to be adhered to by the plaintiff. 6. Writ Petition allowed with above clarification. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) (vvr/10955.10wp)