JUDGMENT 1. - By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner filed under Order 13 Rule 10 had already been allowed and the original of the documents, certified copies whereof are on record have already been requisitioned. 2. By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner for dispensing with the formal proof of the document has been dismissed and thereby the request for drawing presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act has been declined. Suffice it to say that at the time of passing of the order, the original documents were not before the court with respect to which the court could exercise its discretion as to whether a presumption under Section 90 is attracted or not, or is required to be drawn or not. 3. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners submits that discretion lies with in trial court to draw any presumption with respect to the documents or not, inasmuch as the provision of Section 90 are only the rules of Evidence, and at the time of final hearing, the court is to apply its mind as to whether the presumption under Section 90 is to be invoked or not with respect to particular document. 4. In my view, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners is also right. Consequently, it is made clear that after the original documents are received by the trial court pursuant to the impugned order, it will be open to the petitioner, if the petitioner so likes, to lead evidence, to prove the documents, and if the petitioner does not stand advised to lead evidence, then at the time of final hearing, the learned trial court shall be free to apply its mind as to whether the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act is to be raised or not with respect to these documents. In doing so, the impugned order will not come in the way of learned trial court. Since the suit of the year 1994, the learned trial court is directed to expeditiously decide the main suit itself.The revision is accordingly disposed of.Revision Disposed of. *******