- 1 - wp3313.24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 68 WRIT PETITION NO. 3313 OF 2024 Anand Tulshiram Shele ….Petitioner VERSUS Bhavna Anand Shele …..Respondent ….. Mr. P. N. Kutti, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 24th MARCH, 2025. PER COURT : 1. This petition takes exception to the order passed below Exhibit 141 in H.M.P. No. 51/2014 whereby application for de- exhibiting of the document and for examining one witness has been rejected. 2. Petitioner is the original applicant in H.M.P. No.51/2014. Record indicates that he examined witnesses and through said witnesses documents were got exhibited. At later point of time, application Exhibit 141 came to be filed for de-exhibiting of the documents. One more prayer was made to call one witness. This application came to be rejected. Hence, this petition. - 2 - wp3313.24.odt 3. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that the Trial Court has committed error in rejecting the application by observing that there is no provision for de-exhibiting the document. In order to support this submission, he has placed reliance on following judgments :- i. Peacock Indutries Ltd. & others vs. Budhrani Finance Ltd. & others, 2006 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 2233 ii. Sh. Vijay Kumar Chopra and others vs. Sheetal viz, in CRM No. M-37042 of 2011, dated 08.12.2011 iii. Shri Gopal Shankarrao Deshmukh vs. Jagdamba Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha, 2014 All M.R. (Cri.) 670. 4. At the outset, the application filed by the Petitioner before Trial Court needs to be reproduced which reads thus :- HkqlkoG ;sFkhy es- 2 js lg fnok.kh U;k;k/kh’k lks- o Lrj HkqlkoG ;kaps dksVkZr ;kauk vtZnkjkdMqu fouarhiqoZd vtZ vlk dh] fu’kk.kh dz- 133 rs 136 fu’kk.kh dz- tks vtZnkjkrQsZ lk{khnkjkus th lk{k fnyh R;ke;s Hkjiqj rQkor vkgs- ;ke/;s nksu rkj[kk fnlrkr- R;keqGs dks.krh rkjh[k ;ksX; vkgs gh fuN~phri.ks lkaxrk ;sr ukgh- ;kiqohZ ;kp eksckbZy uacj ckcr iksyhl vf/kdkjh ,-ih-vk; /kuxj lkgsc ;kauh ekÖ;k’kh cksyys ;kpk iqjkok Eg.kqu vtZnkjkus ;kiqohZ dksVkZr lknj dsyk vkgs- R;kyk dksVkZus vkVhZdy ih- 2 ua fnyk vkgs- gk fjiksVZ dk;nk vkf.k lqO;oLFkkiu - 3 - wp3313.24.odt LFkkiu dj.kkÚ;kl iksyhl vf/kdkÚ;kus ftYgk vf/k{kd (Hkkjrh; iz’kklu vf/kdkjh)¼;kauk fjiksVZ dsyk vkgs- Eg.kqu es- dksVkZyk fouarh vkgs dh] lk{khnkjkus fnysyh lk{k fgyk fu’kk.kh ua- u ykork iqUgk fujh{k.k djkos- gh fouarh- rlsp vkEgkyk ,dp lk{khnkjkyk dkWy dj.;kph fouarh djrks- R;kuarj vkEgh vkepk iqjkok can dj.kkj- 5. Perusal of this application shows that application was for dual purpose. First is for de-exhibiting the documents and second for calling witness. As far as exhibition of documents is concerned, the law on the point of proof of documents is fairly settled to say that merely because the document is exhibited it need not be read in evidence so also the document which is not exhibited but is otherwise proved can be read in evidence. Thus, it makes no difference as to whether the document remains exhibited or otherwise. It is for the party to satisfy the Court as to whether such document can be read in evidence or not. By keeping this issue open, rejection of application to this extent deserves to be accepted. 6. Perusal of the judgments cited supra indicates that those were not the cases wherein the party itself has examined witnesses - 4 - wp3313.24.odt and got the documents proved which at the later point of time sought to be de-exhibited. Hence, these judgments have no application to the present case. 7. Insofar as dispute with regard to the calling of witness is concerned, contents of the application as reproduced hereinabove indicate that the application is as vague as possible. Neither the name of witness is disclosed nor reasons/purpose for which he is to be examined is pointed out to the Court. The learned Trial court has rightly taken into consideration the said aspect and has rejected the application. This Court finds no perversity in the order impugned. Hence, petition is dismissed. ( R. M. JOSHI) Judge dyb