1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10427 OF 2009 Chetan Industrial Corporation .. Petitioner versus Maharashtra Engineering System & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.S.Shah for the petitioner. Mr.Rahul S. Walvekar for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16th February 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioner is the original 1st defendant and the 1st respondent is the original plaintiff. In the suit filed by the 1st respondent, there is a reference to a purchase order placed by the petitioner. An application was made by the petitioner-1st defendant at Exhibit 45 seeking a direction against the 1st respondent to produce the original purchase order. The said application was rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, an application was made by the petitioner seeking permission to produce alleged true copy of the purchase order. The said application at Exhibit 46 was allowed by the trial Court by observing that the documents sought to be produced alongwith the said application were xerox copies. However, the learned Judge permitted production of the said documents. 2. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the xerox copies already allowed 2 to be produced as per order below Exhibit 46 may not be exhibited as the originals are not on record. 3. The suit is at the stage of recording of the evidence of the 1st respondent- plaintiff. If the petitioner is relying upon a xerox copy of the purchase order and if the original is not produced on record, the petitioner can always apply for permission to lead secondary evidence of the original by production of the xerox copy which is already on record. In fact by the impugned order, the trial Court has permitted the production of the xerox copy. The order does not prevent the petitioner from proving the purchase order by adducing evidence. 4. Subject to what is observed above, no interference is called for. Writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)