D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. T. J. Bhattji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. ( 2 ) INSTANT Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th March, 2002, passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil application 6465 of 2001. ( 3 ) BY the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order dated 10th July, 2001, passed by the Incharge assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara region, Vadodara, in Inquiry Application no. 97/96, whereby the application Ex. 79, praying for admissibility of secondary evidence in relation to the documents, was allowed. ( 4 ) THE view taken by the learned single Judge is perfect in law, and is in consonance with the decision of the Honble supreme Court rendered in CENTRAL bank OF INDIA LTD. V. GOKAL chand, reported in AIR 1967 SC at Page 799, which is an authority for the proposition that the order regarding admissibility of a document is an interlocutory order. It is merely a step taken towards the final adjudication, and for assisting the parties in prosecution of their case in the pending proceedings. It merely regulates the procedure and does not affect any right or liability of the parties. ( 5 ) IN almost identical situation, in the case of HAJARI LAL V. SIYA SARAN AND others, reported in AIR 1910 allahabad at Page 73, the Allahabad high Court held that order regarding admissibility of document in evidence neither adjudicates upon any right or obligation of the parties in controversy nor affects any of their right or liability, and declined to interfere in the matter of admissibility of the document by pointing out that it would be open to challenge by the aggrieved party in proceedings against the final order. ( 6 ) FOR what has been said above, the court is not persuaded to hold that the impugned judgment and order is erroneous. The Letters Patent Appeal lacks merit. It is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( 7 ) NO orders on Civil Application. .