1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1658/2010 Sheodayal J. Rajgire and others -: versus :- Vasant D. Jibhkate and another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 09, 2010. Heard Shri J.J. Chandurkar, learned counsel for petitioners. The certified copies in Probate proceedings were filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 134/1995. Those certified copies were marked as Exh.Nos. 20, 21 and 38 subject to objection to be decided at the stage of final arguments. No objection was raised by petitioners at that time. After adverse judgment by the trial Court, they have filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 77/2000 and in that appeal after 9 years an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., has been moved seeking leave to adduce evidence to prove those documents. Unfortunately the opponent lady who has signed the said document has also expired in the meanwhile. The Appellate Court has considered all these facts and has rejected that prayer. One of the contention was these certified copies are public documents. The Appellate 2 Court has not concluded that controversy and kept it open for consideration. By placing reliance upon various judgments including the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia -vrs- Subodh Mody (2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 886 the learned counsel contends that the objection raised before the trial Court at the stage of proving of these documents ought to have been decided then and there. As that objection was not decided petitioners were mislead and learnt about the adjudication only after final judgment by the trial Court. They therefore lost the opportunity which they could have otherwise utilized to prove those certified copies at Exh.20, 21 and 38. The petitioners had filed certified copies of documents to pleadings in probate proceedings. They were aware of the law on the point and though objection was taken, they have not taken necessary steps at that stage. Not only this, the order of trial Court to decide those objection at the stage of final arguments has not been assailed. Thereafter the appeal has been filed and in that appeal after 9 yeas application under Order 41 Rule 27 has been placed on record. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. The issue is left open for consideration after final adjudication in appeal. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.