1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4854 OF 2009. ( Smt. Prabhabai M. Hasoriya and others -: versus :- Smt. Durgabai N. Hasoriya and others ) 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. DATED : DECEMBER 15, 2009. Heard Shri K.A. Choube, learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs and Shri R. Joshi, learned counsel for respondents/defendants. By impugned order dated 17.06.2009, application at Exh.72 filed by petitioner in Regular Civil Suit No.731/2006 to lead secondary evidence has been rejected, after observing that it was not shown to the Court that, partition deed was filed on Regular Civil Suit No. 986/1974. Shri Choube, learned counsel states that the certificate issued by the Registrar of District Court showing that part of record is destroyed, was already produced before the trial Court to show that the destruction of original with ground that defendant no.2 had supplied xerox copy of the certified copy of the partition deed to plaintiff no.2. According to him, this was sufficient to grant necessary leave. Shri Joshi, learned counsel points out that, 2 paragraph no.1 of Exh.72 no where states that the original partition deed was filed in Regular Civil Suit No.986/1974. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that the petitioners/ plaintiffs wanted to produce and prove xerox copy of the alleged certified copy given to him by the defendant no.2. He for that purpose relied upon the record of Regular Civil Suit No. 986/1974. If the partition deed was produced in that suit, the said fact could have been verified from the list of documents and also from the order sheet maintained therein. If the partition deed was registered with the Sub-Registrar of the document, appropriate certified copy could have been applied for or then evidence of that Authority could have been also been given to point out the position in relation to original or certified copy. Looking to the nature of controversy, the petitioners/plaintiffs are permitted to file fresh application giving necessary details in accordance with the law, and for the said purpose the impugned order passed below Exh.72 on 17.06.2009 is quashed and set aside. Fresh application moved under section 63 of the Evidence Act shall be considered by the Court below in accordance with the law and the said court shall not be prejudiced by its earlier order of by the observations made in this present matter. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule accordingly. No cost. JUDGE 3 Rgd.