1 WP 8453.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8453 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar,Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.D.Thube-Mhase, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 22/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is the original defendant. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has filed an application for adducing secondary evidence in respect of the document styled as ‘ Partition deed ’ dated 31/6/1999. The trial court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 2. Mr. Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had averred in the application the fact of loss of the partition deed. It was an error on the part of the trial court to reject the said application. According to the learned counsel, opportunity should have 2 WP 8453.2010 been given to the petitioner to adduce the secondary evidence, particularly when the foundation is made regarding the said partition deed. 3. Mrs. Thube, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the petitioner has to file the document along with the Written Statement in view of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure [ For short, ‘ the Code ’ ]. He has not stated anything about loss of document in the Written Statement nor the document was filed. Thereafter, subsequently, he can not be permitted to file the said document nor adduce secondary evidence. According to the learned counsel, no error has been committed by the trial court while rejecting the said application as the application did not contain the details about the loss of document nor the foundation was led in the pleadings as is required under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Code. 4. I have perused the application. The application is as vague as it could be. It does not contain the details as to when the said document is lost. No details are given. The said application does not satisfy the rules for adducing secondary evidence. No doubt, in the Written Statement, 3 WP 8453.2010 pleading is there about the partition deed, but unless and until the petitioner satisfies the grounds for adducing secondary evidence, he can not be allowed to adduce secondary evidence. In that light of the matter, the impugned order can not be faulted with. 5. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application for adducing secondary evidence after giving necessary details and the learned trial court shall consider the said application afresh without being impressed by the order already passed and shall decide the same in accordance with the provisions of Order VIII and the rules governing adducing the secondary evidence. 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 8453.2010