Chandka 1 APP-885-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 885 OF 2010 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 7 OF 2007 IN PROBATE PETITION NO. 964 OF 2006 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2330 OF 2010 Kamal Manilal Doshi ..Appellant versus Manilal Sunderji Doshi & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Kunal Doshi with Mr. Bhavin Gada and Mr. Sachin Karia i/b. Harakhchand and Co. for Appellant. Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Shah and Mr. Mehul A. Shah i/b. Mr. A. G. Shah for Respondents. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. 07 February 2011. P.C. : The Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia & Ors. vs. Subodh Mody & Ors.1, holds thus :- 1 2008(6) Bom. C.R. 519 Chandka 2 APP-885-10 “We may make it clear that a ruling as regards admissibility of evidence should be as brief as possible since no appeal lies against such order, it not being a ‘judgment’. Once the ruling has been given, there should be no interruption in the trial and the trial Court should proceed with the trial to judgment without interruption. In the judgment the order should incorporate fuller reasons, if need be, for holding particular evidence to be inadmissible.” 2. In view of the judgment, we are not inclined to entertain the Appeal, at this stage. We however leave it open to the Appellant to raise all appropriate contentions, after the final judgment of the learned trial Judge. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. 3. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, the Notice of Motion does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta, J.)