ORDER-It appears that, in connection with certain documents, the State Government being the defendant in the suit, at the stage of answers to interrogatories, raised a contention that the documents were privileged. By the order dated March] 3, 1969, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, held that He submissions made about the privilege claimed in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government were insufficient His order was: "I therefore disallow the prayer regarding the privilege." By a further order dated July 15, 1969, the learned Judge rejected the application exh. 37) made on behalf of the State Government for reconsidering the question of privilege. The submission on behalf of the State was that in the fresh affidavit which was then filed, facts relevant to the question of privilege had been stated. The question should, therefore, be reconsidered The learned Judge then held that, having regard to his previous order dated March 13, 1969, it would not be proper and just to review the question again raised at a late stage. 2. Now, Mr. Dalvi for the State Government is right in his submission that when a question of privilege is raised on behalf of the Government in any suit or proceedings, normally, that question must be decided at the hearing of a suit when in the course of recording of evidence a demand for document is made on behalf of a party to the suit and the State Government claims privilege. Ordinarily in the course of recording of evidence after permitting the Government to produce such material as it desires in support of its claims for privilege the Court should decide the question of privilege. It was somewhat abnormal and out of the ordinary for the lower Court to decide the question of privilege at the stage of interrogatories. Even if inspection of disclosed documents is refused on the ground of privilege at earlier stage, the question should never be decided at the stage at which the learned Judge below passed his order dated March 13, 1969. He should have directed that the normal practice and procedure was to decide the question whilst evidence is recorded. The Older dated March 13, 1969, was liable to be reviewed at the hearing of the suit. He should have directed that the normal practice and procedure was to decide the question whilst evidence is recorded. The Older dated March 13, 1969, was liable to be reviewed at the hearing of the suit. It was prematurely made without giving sufficient opportunity to the Government for making its appropriate submissions and tendering evidence in support of the claim for privilege. 3. Under the circumstances, the orders dated March 13, 1969 and July 15, 1969, are let aside. The question of privilege, if raised by the Government at the hearing of the suit, will be decided afresh by the trial Court. 4. Rule absolute. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.