1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 86 of 2008 Subhash Ramaji Chandankhede Vs. Arun Bhauraoji Pisar Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA & C. L. PANGARKAR JJ. Dated: 17 th September, 2008. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by a Single Judge dated 07.02.2008 whereby, the appellant has challenged the interlocutary order dated 23.03.2007 principally on the ground that xerox copies of two receipts have been exhibited though objected by the appellant. After going through the said order we find that the learned trial Judge after considering the affidavit on record, has justified to place on record the secondary evidence in question and therefore 2 exhibited those documents. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Naginbhai P. Desai Vs. Tatraben A Sheth AIR 2003 Bombay 192 and Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujrath and Another AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1158, the facts of these cases are totally different as those cases are not on a foundation of Section 65 of the Evidence Act that is to lead the secondary evidence if case is made out or not. We see that there is no reason to interfere with the said interlocutary order which is rightly maintained by the learned Single Judge. The letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE svk