( 1 ) RULE. Shri Ravindra Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner original plaintiff has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18. 2. 2009 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad passed below Exh. 262 in Civil Suit No. 2780 of 2004, by which the learned Judge has passed an order to give tentative Exhibit number to the document Mark 52/4 and 52/18 keeping all the questions with respect to admissibility of the said document in evidence at the time of judgment. ( 3 ) THE facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under: the petitioner-plaintiff has instituted Civil Suit No. 2780 of 2004 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The defendant produced the documents along with the list Exh. 52 on 17. 11. 2005 inclusive of the documents Mark 52/4 and 52/18. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner -plaintiff that petitioner original plaintiff made endorsement admitting certain documents produced along with list Exh. 52, however did not admit the documents mark 52/4 and 52/18. That, those documents which were admitted exhibit numbers were given and as the documents Mark 52/4 and 52/18 were not admitted by the petitioner-plaintiff, the learned Judge / Court did not give the Exhibit numbers to the said documents. That thereafter, the suit came to be proceeded further. It appears that one suit came to be filed by the respondent original defendant also and an order came to be passed to consolidate both the suits. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter the plaintiff's evidence was over and even the evidence of the defendant was also completed and over and not only that but even the written argument of the petitioner-plaintiff was submitted on 10. 11. 2008. That thereafter, it was at the stage of submitting the oral submissions on behalf of the defendant and the matter was adjourned thereafter. 11. 2008. That thereafter, it was at the stage of submitting the oral submissions on behalf of the defendant and the matter was adjourned thereafter. It is to be noted at this stage that there is an order passed by this Court to complete the trial within stipulated time and the same expires on 31. 7. 2009. At that stage, the respondent-defendant submitted the application Exh. 262 to give exhibit numbers to the document produced at mark 52/4 and 52/18. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in AIR. 2001 SC, 1158 passed the impugned order giving tentative exhibit numbers to the documents mark 52/4 and 52/18 keeping all the questions with respect to the admissibility of those documents in evidence herein to be decided at the time of judgment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dated 18. 2. 2009 passed in Civil Suit No. 2780 of 2004 below Exh. 262, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) SHRI Sanjay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff has submitted that as such from the very beginning the petitioner-plaintiff objected to give the exhibit numbers to the document mark 52/4 and 52/18 by not admitting the said documents at the relevant time. It is submitted that in fact, petitioner led the evidence on the basis that those documents are exhibited. It is submitted that now, therefore, if these documents are exhibited at this stage even tentatively even by keeping all the questions with respect to the admissibility of those documents in evidence is to be considered at the time of delivering the judgment in that case if ultimately at that stage the learned Judge comes to the conclusion that those documents are admissible in evidence, in that case petitioner-plaintiff would be deprived of his legitimate right to lead the evidence with respect to the said documents and taking away the right of the petitioner-plaintiff. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application by directing the learned Judge to decide all the questions with respect to the admissibility of those documents in evidence at this stage so that petitioner can know at this stage and if ultimately those documents are accepted and are held to be admissible in evidence, the petitioner-plaintiff can lead the evidence with respect to those documents. It is submitted that if such a course is adopted no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent- defendant. ( 5 ) SHRI Ravindra Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent original defendant has submitted that respondent - defendant has no objection if the aforesaid course as suggested by the learned advocate for the petitioner is adopted. However, he has submitted that as such the documents in question were referred to by the respondent-defendant in his evidence but there was some typographical error and giving mark numbers. ( 6 ) BE that it may, in view of the statement of Shri Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent -defendant recorded herein above this Court is not further require to give / assign any further reasons. However, this Court is of the opinion that on the facts of the present case the learned Judge has committed error in relying upon the decision of the Hon'bel Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal (Supra ). That was the case where the objection with respect to admissibility of the documents in evidence was raised at the time of recording the evidence and not after the evidence was closed and it was at the stage of leading evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the evidence was going on and objection was taken with respect to admissibility of documents in evidence the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in such a case the best course to be adopted is to give tentative exhibit numbers to documents which is objected to and to keep the question with respect to admissibility of the evidence open at the stage of final hearing. The idea behind the same seems to be that if such a course is adopted in that case, when the evidence is recorded and on objection being taken with respect to admissibility of the documents in evidence and tentative exhibit number is given, keeping the question with respect to admissibility of said documents in evidence open, in that case the party who has objected to give the exhibit numbers and / or against the admissibility of documents in evidence can subject to his objection can cross examine the witnesses on the said documents which are given tentative exhibit numbers. Considering the facts stated herein above in the present case, if the tentative exhibit numbers are given after recording all the evidence and at the time of arguments and the question with respect to admissibility of the evidence is required to be considered at the time of judgment then certainly petitioner-plaintiff would be deprived of his right to lead the evidence on those documents. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra) can be applied in a case where the objection with respect to admissibility of the documents in evidence is taken at the time of recording the evidence and cannot be applied in a case where the evidence is already closed and it is at the stage of arguments. If at the stage of argument and after the evidence is closed the documents for which the objection is raised with respect to the admissibility of evidence, are given tentative exhibit numbers and the question with respect to admissibility of such document in evidence is left open at the time of judgment in that case, if ultimately, at the time of pronouncement of the judgment the learned trial Court takes the view that such documents are admissible in evidence and relying upon the said documents, if judgment is pronounced in that case, party who has objected to admissibility of such documents in evidence would be deprived of his right to lead the evidence on such documents, which is not permissible. In such a case, the question with respect to admissibility of such documents in evidence is required to be considered at the earliest so that party who has objected can know and if ultimately any decision is taken that such documents are admissible in evidence he can lead the evidence on such documents and in that case no injustice will be caused to him. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has committed an error in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, in view of the statement of learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties referred to herein above , this Court is also of the opinion that the question with respect to admissibility of the evidence of the documents in question is required to be considered at this stage and if ultimately the learned Judge comes to the conclusion that those documents are admissible in evidence in that case, the petitioner-plaintiff may be given an opportunity to lead the evidence on those documents. If such a course is adopted, it appears to the Court that there shall not be any prejudice caused to the respondent-defendant. ( 8 ) SHRI Ravindra Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent herein has apprehended that it would further delay the conclusion of the trial. Shri Sanjay Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the apprehension is not well founded and in fact the same can be very well taken care of by directing the learned trial Court to decide the question with respect to admissibility of documents in question in evidence at the earliest and the petitioner shall not ask for time and if ultimately the learned trial Court comes to the conclusion that the said documents are admissible in evidence, in that case, petitioner shall lead the evidence on those documents on the date that may be fixed by the learned trial Court and the petitioner shall full cooperate the learned trial Court in early disposal of the trial. However, he has submitted that aforesaid cannot be ground to deny an opportunity to the petitioner to deal with those documents. Shri Shah, learned advocate for the respondent has further submitted that in view of the direction issued by this Court the trial is required to conclude the trial on or before 31. 7. However, he has submitted that aforesaid cannot be ground to deny an opportunity to the petitioner to deal with those documents. Shri Shah, learned advocate for the respondent has further submitted that in view of the direction issued by this Court the trial is required to conclude the trial on or before 31. 7. 2009 and, therefore, if the decision is taken that the documents in question are admissible in evidence, in that case, the petitioner might challenge the same. So far as the aforesaid apprehension is concerned, it can also be very well taken care of by permitting the petitioner to raise the contention and to make out a ground in appeal against the final decision if at all there is a decision against the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN view of the above and for the reasons stated above petition succeeds and the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad dated 18. 2. 2009 passed below Exh. 262 in Civil Suit No. 2780 of 2004 is hereby quashed and set aside with following direction: (1 ). The learned Judge shall take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and on merits with respect to admissibility of documents mark 52/4 and 52/18 in evidence on or before 1. 7. 2009 after giving an opportunity to both the sides. If ultimately, the learned Judge comes to the conclusion that those documents are admissible in evidence, it will be open for the petitioner-plaintiff to lead evidence on those documents, however the same shall be done by the respective parties within a period of 10 days thereafter. Considering the fact that the suit is to be disposed of by the learned trial Court on or before 31. 7. Considering the fact that the suit is to be disposed of by the learned trial Court on or before 31. 7. 2009 as per the direction of this Court, and in the facts and circumstances of the case if any party is aggrieved by the decision of the learned trial Court with respect to the admissibility of the documents in question it will be open for either parties to take a ground before learned Appellate Court against the final judgment and order in the suit and can make out a ground if the decision is based on such documents or vice-a-versa meaning thereby if any decision is taken by the learned trial Court to the effect that the documents in question are admissible in evidence and the decision is against the petitioner based upon the documents in question, in that case, it will be open for the petitioner -original plaintiff to take a ground in the appeal against the final judgment and order. Similarly, vice-a-versa if the Court comes to the conclusion that documents in question are not admissible in evidence, in that case, also and in case decision is against the respondent herein original defendant, in that case it will be open for the respondent to take a ground in the appeal against the final decision making out a ground that said documents were required to be held admissible in evidence and have been wrongly not admitted in evidence. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad immediately. Direct service is permitted. CIIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6131 OF 2009 in view of the disposal of main Special Civil Application , no order in Civil Application by observing that this Court has not observed anything on merits so far as the Civil Application is concerned.