1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1636/2010. Prabhakar Pundlik Satpute -: VERSUS :- Prakash Pundlik Satpute 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 : JULY 27, 2010. Heard Shri M.P. Khajanchi, learned Counsel for Petitioner and Shri S.B. Walekar, learned Counsel for respondent no.1. The orders dated 26.03.2010 passed below Exhs. 114 and 113 in Special Civil Suit No.120/2008 are the subject matter of present petition. In earlier round of litigation between the parties that Suit has been expedited and has been ordered to be decided by 30.06.2010. At that time, the discovery of a document styled as “partition deed” dated 11.04.1970 was allowed by this Court. Thereafter the petitioner / plaintiff filed application at Exh. 114 seeking leave to lead secondary evidence, and Exh.113 seeking leave to lead additional 2 evidence in relation to that document. The trial Court has found that a case for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence under Section 65[c] of C.P.C. is made out, but then as document was unregistered, it was not admissible. It also found that the document could not have been put to any collateral use in a suit for partition and separate possession. It therefore, rejected the application at Exh.114. Because of that rejection, as Exh.113 sought leave to prove that document only, Exh.113 also came to be rejected. Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel points out that in earlier round of litigation this Court has found the document dated 11.04.1970 to be relevant in suit for partition and separate possession. He relies upon the judgment of this Court reported at 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 406 (Anil Balasaheb Murde .vrs. Adinath Trimbak Bodkhe) to urge that the finding of admissibility of document at the stage of consideration of Exh.114 is pre-mature and the finding could have been and ought to have been delivered, after the permission was granted and plaintiff started leading secondary evidence. Shri Walekar, learned counsel in reply has relied upon the judgment reported at 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 571 (Ramdas Bhatu Chaudhary .vrs. Anant Chunilal Kate) to show that other view of the matter is also possible and in present facts, the approach cannot be faulted with. 3 With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I have perused the impugned orders. It is not necessary for this Court to go back to the earlier orders passed by it, because order dated 26.03.2010 passed below Exh.114 is not questioned by any of the respondents. In order the trial Court has in paragraph no.8 found that a case for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence in view of the provisions of Section 65[c] was clearly made out. Thereafter, it has proceeded further to note that document dated 11.04.1970 is not a registered document and that it effected partition in presentee and that it could not have been used for any collateral purpose. The findings could have been sustained if the collateral use of that document was not possible at all. Prima facie, perusal of the partition deed show certain factual statement contained therein and it therefore, appears that those facts can be used by either of the parties as per their stand in the Civil Suit. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the contention of Shri Walekar, learned counsel or in findings reached by the trial Court that collateral use of document is not possible. As collateral use of that document is found possible, the reason given by the trial Court for rejecting leave to petitioner to lead secondary evidence in relation to that document by rejecting Exh.114 cannot be sustained. 4 The petitioner/ plaintiff can attempt to bring on record necessary facts and for that purpose he also needs to be given opportunity as sought for in Exh.114. Only for that purpose, the order passed below Exh.114 is quashed and set aside. The order at Exh.113 passed on same date is also therefore, quashed and set aside. The petitioner / plaintiff is given liberty to lead secondary evidence in relation to said document with express note that that document can be only used for collateral purpose. The correctness of such user and its extent should be dealt with by the Trial Court at appropriate stage without getting influenced by prima facie observations of this Court. The suit was earlier made time bound by this court. The said time is extended till 31.12.2010 as jointly requested by the parties. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.