1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1576/2011 Ramkishor S. Rathi VERSUS Ramchandra S. Rathi. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Rahul Tajne, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.D. Girdekar, counsel for Respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 5 , 2011 . Heard Shri Tajne, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Girdekar, the learned counsel for the respondents. Though the reasons recorded by the trial court for rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for permitting to lead secondary evidence in regard to the document/kararnama dated 16/04/2005 may not be just and proper, the conclusion reached by the trial court that the application was liable to be rejected is just and proper. The trial court rightly observed that though the suit was filed on 15/04/2008, there was no specific mention of the document/kararnama dated 16/4/2005 in the written statement filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had not pleaded about the said document dated 16/4/2005 in the written statement, in the sense that no date, description etc. of the document was stated in the written statement. The 2 written statement was filed by the petitioner in September, 2008 even and a copy of the so called document was not filed by the petitioner along with the list of documents. Moreover, it was not the case of the petitioner in the written statement that the document dated 16/4/2005 was lost and for the first time, by the application dated 3/2/2011, the petitioner sought permission to lead secondary evidence under section 65(1)(c) of the Evidence Act on the ground that the said document is lost. Since the foundation for tendering secondary evidence in regard to the document dated 16/4/05 was not properly laid by the petitioner, the trial court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for permitting to tender secondary evidence. The mere mention in the impugned order that the provisions of Section 65(a)(f) were not attracted in the case, would not render the order dated 18/2/2011 as bad or unjust as the trial court had rightly reached to the ultimate conclusion that in the facts and circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner was liable to be rejected. Since there is no error in the impugned order passed by the trial court on 18/2/2011, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan