: 1 : 659-11-cra=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 659 OF 2011 Mrs. Vaishali Darshak Ghegadmal .. Applicant v/s. Mrs. Taibai Santosh Ghegadmal .. Respondent ......... Mr. Rupesh Bhalshankar for the applicant Mr. Suresh Gole for the respondent ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 5th OCTOBER,2011. Not on Board. Upon production, taken on Board. P.C. : 1. By consent of advocates on both sides, the petition is taken up for hearing as the main suit is posted for argument on 12th October, 2011. Heard learned advocates on both sides. In the suit No.2535 of 2009 filed in the City Civil Court at Mumbai the respondent tendered one CD as well as three photographs for being taken on record after the evidence of respondent was over. At that stage, learned advocate for the respondent : 2 : 659-11-cra=.sxw upon instructions submitted that the respondent would not like to rely upon the CD. The question before the Judge is what is to be done about the three photographs which were originally marked as X,X1, and X2. It is seen that the learned Judge thereafter marked this photographs as Exh.60, 63, 64 and 65. The order passed by learned Judge in that behalf clearly goes to show that those photographs were marked as exhibits only for the purposes of identifying them and not beyond that. The petitioner was told that after evidence is over, he can argue about taking these three documents on record and reading the same at the time of arguments. When this was objected to by the learned Judge for the petitioner, petitioner was asked to file an objection in writing and that was done by the petitioner below Exh.87. That objection was rejected however, the learned Judge has observed in the order dated 26th August, 2011 that it would be open for the petitioner to argue at the time final arguments about the admissibility of the said documents on record. The relevant sentence in the order is : “Hence, the objection regarding the production of the photographs, which are already exhibited can be decided at the time of final decision.” : 3 : 659-11-cra=.sxw 2. This will mean that the learned Judge of the City Civil Court is going to offer hearing to the applicant as to whether the documents should be read in evidence or not. Hence, at this stage, there is no need to interfere in the order. The only clarification which I propose to make is as follows. 3. At the time of hearing of the final argument, at the first instance, the applicant will be able to advance his submission before the learned Judge that these three photographs whether marked as Exh.63 to 65 and should not be read in evidence. Learned advocate Mr. Gole would be able to oppose this submission. Thereafter, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court shall commence dictation of the judgment and at the outset only, the learned Judge shall arrive at conclusion as to whether the documents at Exh.63 to 65 should be read in evidence or not by giving reasons in the said judgment. Depending upon the conclusion which will be arrived at the learned will be able to decide the matter on merits. With the aforesaid clarification, Civil Revision Application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)