INDRAKANT KISHORDAS SHAH Vs. KESHRINATH D MHATRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 9-3-2004 passed by the trial Court as well as the order dated 1-7-2004 passed by the revisional Court in relation to the objection which was sought to be raised by the petitioner to the admissibility of the documents in the evidence which were sought to be produced by the respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner, placing reliance in the decision in the matter of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and another, reported in 2003 (8) SCC 752 as well as Ram Rattan (dead) by legal representatives v. Bajrang Lal and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1393, Javer Chand and others v. Pukhraj Surana, reported in 1961 SC 1655 as well as the judgments of this Court in the matters of Shri Saifuddin Saheblal Vazir v. Smt. Habjabai Mishra Patel & Anr., reported in 2003 (1) All M.R. 131, Shri Durgashankar S. Trivedi & Ors. v. Shri Babubhai Bhulabhai Parekh, reported in 2003 (2) ALL M.R. 565 and Bharat R. Desai & Anr. v. Naina Mohanlal Bhal, reported in 2004 (2) All M.R. 291, submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to the settled law on the point of obligation of the Court to decide the objection relating to the admissibility of the document at the time when it is raised in the course of recording of evidence and not to postpone such decision till the final disposal of the suit. He further submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal's case (supra) has no application to the matter to which the Code of Civil Procedure applies and the observations therein are in relation to the criminal cases, and this is further clear from the decision of the Apex Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder's case (supra).