( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3820 OF 2010 Shri Somnath s/o Digambar Udavant PETITIONER VERSUS Sow. Manda w/o Hiralal Kale RESPONDENT ..... Mr. B.A. Dhengle, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mahesh C. Swami, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 27th April, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The respondent sought leave to adduce secondary evidence in respect of an agreement of sale purportedly executed by the petitioner on 8th November, 2007 on a stamp paper bearing No. W.53646. The application indicated that the original document was in possession of the petitioner. It was called for. The trial Court allowed the respondent to lead secondary evidence. 3. Having heard learned counsel and on ( 2 ) consideration of the relevant copies of the documents, it emerges that the respondent alleged execution of two documents in regard to same transaction. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent fabricated one of the agreement of sale and ordinarily, there was no reason to obtain two separate documents in respect of same transaction. The issue regarding nature of the document and whether it is fabricated or not can be gone into by the trial Court after recording of the evidence. The impugned order does not suffer from perversity because merits cannot be adjudicated at the interim stage and the opportunity to lead evidence cannot be scuttled only because the petitioner alleged fabrication of the document in question. The trial Court shall, however, decide the relevant issues without being influenced by any of the observations in this order and independently consider the nature of the document as well as the contentions of the parties about the same. The petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp3820-2010 ( 3 )