1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6267 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. G.K.Naik-Thigle,Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S.Wagh, Advocate for respondent. [ CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. ] DATE : 08/12/2009. PER COURT : 1. By consent of the learned counsel for parties, taken up for hearing. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 20/8/2009 vide which an application filed by the respondent for exhibiting the document in question i.e. a letter addressed by one Vikas I. Jagtap to the present petitioner (applicant- Company), came to be allowed. 3. A Suit filed by the respondent herein came to be decreed exparte. An application vide M.A.R.J.I. No. 785 of 2008 has been filed by the present petitioners for setting aside the said decree along with an application for 2 condonation of delay. The said application is resisted by the present respondent. During the evidence that was led on behalf of present respondent, a witness of respondent namely Vikas I. Jagtap has referred to one letter dated 17/9/2006 allegedly addressed to the present petitioners. The respondent requested the Court for accepting the said letter as secondary evidence. The prayer was resisted by the present petitioners. However, by the impugned order, the learned trial court directed that a copy of the said document be treated as secondary evidence. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 4. Mr. Thigale, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the receipt of said letter is seriously disputed by the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners have not received said letter and if a copy of the said letter is permitted to be treated as secondary evidence, then the valuable right of the present petitioners in the matter of condonation of delay would be seriously affected. 5. Mr. S.S.Wagh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent 3 submits that though notice U/s 66 of the Evidence Act was issued to the present petitioner for production of the original of the said letter, they have denied the receipt of the said letter and as such the respondent had no other option than to apply for treating a copy of the said letter as secondary evidence. From the record, it can thus clearly be seen that though the present respondent has served a notice for production of the original of the said letter, which is treated as secondary evidence by the learned trial court, the present petitioners have denied the receipt of the same. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order passed by the learned trial court in treating a copy of the said letter as secondary evidence in as much as the witness in whose deposition the said letter is referred, is himself an author of the said letter. In any way, a question regarding as to what evidenciary value it has and as to whether the petitioners have in fact received the said letter or not, would be the questions that would be required to be determined by the learned trial court at the stage of hearing of the Suit. 4 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the evidence of the petitioner is already concluded and the stage is of the evidence of the respondent, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the same preferably within the period of 3 months from today. The present Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP6267.09