1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7094 OF 2008 Mr.Annappa Balu Powar through Power of Attorney holder Pandurang Jyotiba Redekar .. Petitioner Versus Suresh Sadashiv Bhagwat & Ors. .. Respondents (Org.Defendants) And The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr.B.A.Powar for the petitioner. Mr.N.S.Parabkar for respondent Nos.1 to 7. Ms.Bhende, A.G.P for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26th August 2009. P.C.: . As noted in order dated 30th July 2009 the learned A.P.P has filed affidavit of the concerned officer of the State in which he has denied that document at Exhibit 241 is fabricated. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the original defendants. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration of 2 ownership of 2/3rd share and for declaration that entries made in the record of the names of the 1st to 7th defendants to the extent of 2/3rd share are illegal and the same are not binding on the petitioner-plaintiff. The other prayers are for partition and for injunction. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the orders passed by the trial Court on applications made by the petitioner at Exhibit 156 and Exhibit 244. 3. The application at Exhibit 244 was filed by the petitioner contending that the panchnama or possession receipt at Exhibit 241 produced by the 1st to 3rd defendants is forged and fabricated and therefore the same be impounded. By the order dated 26th August 2008, the said application was rejected. The other application at Exhibit 156 is filed by the petitioner praying for framing additional issues. A contention has been raised that the written statement of 8th to 14th defendants who are the officers of the State is purportedly signed by a Government Pleader who had no authority to sign the same. It is contended that the said written 3 statement is not properly signed and verified and therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. The prayer in the application is for framing two additional issues based on this contention that the written statement filed by the said defendants is not legal and proper as it is not signed and verified by them. The said application has been rejected by order dated 13th March 2008. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is enough material on record to show that the document at Exhibit 241 was forged and fabricated. He submitted that the trial Court ought to have impounded the said document. He pointed out that additional issues as prayed in Exhibit 156 ought to have been framed as the said issues arise for consideration. 5. I have considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that substantial part of evidence has been already recorded in the suit. Whether the document at Exhibit 241 is genuine or fabricated is a question which will have to be decided by the 4 trial Court while deciding the suit finally. As of today no finding can be recorded on the said issue. The trial Court will have to consider the entire evidence on record and will have to record a finding on this aspect. There is already an order passed by this Court directing that the document at Exhibit 241 shall be kept in safe custody of the Nazir of the Civil Court. Therefore, considering the stage at which application was made, the trial Court was justified in not granting the prayer for impounding the said document. 6. As far as technical defect in the written statement filed by the officers of the State is concerned, assuming that there is a defect, the said defect is always curable. In any case there is no reason to frame issues on the said contention raised by the petitioner. 7. No case is made out for interference in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is rejected by keeping all contentions open. It is made clear that the document at Exhibit 241 will continue to remain in 5 safe custody of the Nazir and the said document shall be produced before the Court as and when the suit is fixed for hearing. All questions relating to genuineness of the document at Exhibit 241 are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)