( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2401 OF 2010 Shri Sanjay Mohanlal Agrawal, through Power of Attorney Vidya Sanjay Agrawal. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Gopal Mohanlal Agrawal and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.S. Shendurnikar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.M. Gholap, advocate for the respondent No. 1. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The petition is finally disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner is original defendant No. 2. The respondent No. 1 is original plaintiff who filed suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 115/2003 for partition and separate possession. The respondent No. 1 filed a memorandum of ( 2 ) partition dated 20th January, 1993 about which objection was raised by the petitioner on the ground that it is an instrument of partition. The respondent No. 1 filed an application dated 16th June, 2003 calling upon the petitioner to produce the original document dated 20th January, 1993. The petitioner, however, did not produce such document. The respondent No. 1 submitted an application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence of the document of which a xerox copy was placed on record. He referred the document in his affidavit of examination-in-chief. He submitted an application (Exh-376) and urged to mark exhibit to the xerox copy of the document dated 20th January, 1993. The trial Court allowed the application. 3. Heard learned counsel. 4. It is contended by Shri Shendurnikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the xerox copy of the document could not be exhibited in as much as it is an instrument of partition which could not be admitted without proper proof and that original thereof was not available. He argued that mere xerox copy ought not to be admitted in evidence without there being proof of execution in respect of ( 3 ) the original document. He also argued that even otherwise, the document is unduly stamped and is liable to be impounded if it is proved prima facie. 5. The impugned order shows that the trial Court simply allowed the document to be exhibited. It is well settled that marking a document as Exhibit does not amount admission thereof in the evidence. The marking of any document during the trial is only ministerial act. If it is found, after cross-examination of the respondent No.1 (plaintiff), that the document is not proved or it is not admissible in evidence, then the trial Court may be persuaded to de-exhibit the same. The trial Court may decide the nature of the document dated 20th January, 1993. In this view of the matter, the present petition is untenable and, therefore, is dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp2401-10