(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3752 OF 2010 Kavita w/o. Tukaram Ingole, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Malegaon, Taluka : Ardhapur, District : Nanded, and another. .. Petitioners. versus Bhagwan s/o. Ramji Ingole, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Malegaon, Taluka : Ardhapur, District : Nanded, and 4 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate, for respondent no.1 Respondent nos.2 to 5 served (Absent). ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15TH MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, for the petitioners, and Adv. Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), for respondent no.1. None for respondent nos.2 to 5 though duly served. 2. The petitioners / defendant nos.2 and 3 have challenged the order dated 3-4-2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ardhapur (District : Nanded), below Exhibit 211 in Regular Civil Suit No. 13/2009. 3. The original document of partition is already exhibited at Exhibit 95. Pointing out that there is some tampering and hence document is not binding, the petitioner / defendant sought to produce certified copy of said partition deed procured by them from the office of Tahsildar. He explained that partition deed was presented before Tahsildar for mutation purposes and then its photostat copy was retained and original was returned back. In that photostat copy, two of the coparceners have not placed their signature while in original (Exhibit 95), those signatures appear. (3) 4. According to Adv. P.R. Katneshwarkar, appearing for the petitioners, the original partition deed at Exhibit 95 has been interpolated later on to show consent of two coparceners. As the certified copy is obtained from public records and issued by public officer, the same can be allowed to be used in evidence. It is urged that by earlier order dated 3-4-2010, permission to produce it was rejected and that order is also erroneous. 5. Adv. Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), for respondent no.1 / plaintiff, has contended that order of trial court refusing leave to file that document dated 3-4-2010 is produced by him on record. He further contends that the belated production was rightly not allowed as it was after the closure of evidence of respondent no. 1 / plaintiff. 6. With the assistance of both learned Counsel, I have perused the papers. Application by which the leave to produce disputed document was sought, does not contain any reason as to why said document could not be filed earlier or then the circumstances in which its knowledge was acquired belatedly. In the circumstances, refusal to file that document on 3-4-2010 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. (4) 7. When document is not allowed to be filed on record, it is apparent that later order passed on the same day, refusing its use for any purposes can also not be questioned before this Court. It appears, after hearing, that effort was to have the document exhibited contending that it was a public document. 8. As filing itself has not been permitted, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. With liberty to the petitioners, to challenge the impugned order, after suit is finally decided, if occasion therefore arises, the petition is disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3752