( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6225 OF 2008 Ratnabai w/o Tamanappa Raikode through GPA Holder Suryakant s/o Tamanappa Raikode PETITIONER VERSUS Hiraman s/o Parappa Kharatmol RESPONDENT ..... MR. Dhananjay Deshpande, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Deshpande, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 17th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petition is preferred by the original plaintiff. He is aggrieved by order dated 20-08-2008 ( 2 ) rendered by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Latur on an application (Exh-118) in suit bearing R.C.S. No. 162/1996. 3. The defendants/respondents filed application seeking leave to file certified copy of the sale-deed which is part of the extract of the register maintained by the Registrar. The learned Civil Judge held that the register maintained by the office of the Sub- Registrar/Registrar is a public document and as such, the extract of the sale-deed can be admitted in evidence without formal proof. The application came to be allowed and the document submitted alongwith list (Exh-111) was directed to be exhibited and read in evidence. 4. It is well settled that the sale-deed, by itself, is not a public document. Only part of the sale-deed, which can be regarded as part of the public document, is the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar whereby the document is registered under his signature. The remaining part of the document is always a private ( 3 ) document. It does not become a public document only because it is re-produced in the register maintained by the Sub-Registrar/Registrar for the purpose of maintaining such record for years to come. The learned Civil Judge held that copy of the sale-deed is not a secondary evidence. In fact, the learned Civil Judge seems to have labored under wrong impression that the extract of the register maintained by the office of the Registrar/Sub-Registrar is not a copy of the sale-deed. Though it is certified copy of the said register, yet, the part, which is simple re-production of the private document, cannot be regarded as a public document as such. The learned Civil Judge observed that because the sale-deed was re-produced in the concerned register, it was an act of public officer and as such, it becomes public document under section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1870. This notion of the learned Civil Judge is quite incorrect and improper. The defendant/respondent could be permitted to prove the said document by adducing secondary evidence regarding due execution of the same. 5. For the aforestated reasons, the impugned order ( 4 ) is liable to be quashed. The petitioner is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Liberty be given to the defendant/respondent to adduce proof regarding the extract of the said register in order to prove due execution of the sale-deed, if proper foundation is made and requirements of section 65 of the Evidence Act are satisfied. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP6225-08