( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3562 OF 2010 Baburao s/o Raosaheb Kadam PETITIONER VERSUS Balprakash s/o Digambar Bidwai and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 27th April, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The respondents moved an application for adducing of secondary evidence of a registered sale-deed No. 2251/1975, alleged executed by Subhash and Ramesh Pensalwar in favour of his deceased father. He asserted that the original sale-deed was not available because it was missing. He supported the application by his own affidavit. The trial Court allowed the application subject to costs of Rs. 100/-. That order is challenged by the present writ petitioner. ( 2 ) 3. First, the impugned order is rendered in the exercise of discretionary powers. The counsel would submit that without there being material to assume loss of the document or misplacement thereof, such leave could not have been granted as the conditions under section 65 of the Evidence Act are not fulfilled by the respondents. I do not agree. The statement was made by the respondent on his affidavit that the registered sale-deed was lost and was missing. Moreover, it is not a document which was not known to the petitioner because copy of the registered sale-deed was placed on record. The case for adducing of secondary evidence was, therefore, made out and as such, the impugned order is not required to be interfered with. The petition is dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp3562-2010