1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5459 OF 2009 (Sunil Bhaurao Asole vs. Gulabrao Vitthalrao Taide & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 17, 2010. Heard Shri Nemade, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Narwade, learned counsel for the respondents. The suit is challenging a sale deed executed allegedly during minority of petitioner – plaintiff in favour of Respondent No.1. By order dated 09.04.2009, the trial Court has “filed” application for direction to produce the said document on record. By subsequent order dated 06.11.2009 passed below Exh. 47, permission to lead secondary evidence in relation thereto has been rejected. Shri Nemade, learned counsel argues that the certified copies of relevant sale deeds are already on record and as Respondent No.1 – defendant has not filed original sale deeds on record, the permission to lead secondary evidence ought to have been given. Shri Narwade, learned counsel argues that the observations in impugned order demonstrate that there was no foundation laid for grant of permission to 2 lead secondary evidence and hence application has been rightly rejected. The perusal of order dated 09.04.2009 reveals that the application/ notice to produce documents at Exh. 24 has been rejected by one word order “filed”. No reasons whatsoever are recorded as to why the direction to produce could not be given. The relevance of documents, of which originals are sought, cannot be disputed in this matter. Shri Narwade, learned counsel has contended that the copy of application to produce documents was not served upon Respondent No.1. That cannot be the reason to reject production by one word order. Hence, the said order dated 09.04.2009 passed below Exh. 24 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner – plaintiff shall serve copy of said application to produce original documents before the trial Court on Respondent No. 1 – defendant No.1. The trial Court shall obtain say of said defendant on that notice and thereafter shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The subsequent application at Exh. 47 came to be filed because of order dated 09.04.2009 which has been set aside by this Court. It is, therefore, apparent that if originals are produced, it will not be necessary for the petitioner – plaintiff to seek leave to lead secondary evidence. Hence, with liberty to the petitioner – plaintiff to file appropriate application with proper affidavit 3 again, after the trial Court passes suitable orders on Exh. 24, the said challenge and contentions of rival parties are kept open. Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.