IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 378 OF 2008 SMT. SUNITA SHYAM NAIK AND 2 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI. ABHINAY J. DESAI AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. S. Kalshawkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 3rd July, 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard Shri Kalshawkar on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners are the defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 36/2002/II Addl. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the said Civil Suit. This Writ Petition is filed to challenge two orders dated 17/06/2008. By the first order, the learned trial Court has allowed the plaintiffs to produce secondary evidence of certain correspondence exchanged between the defendants and Canacona Municipal Council. By the second order, the learned trial Court has rejected the request of the defendants to examine the Chief Officer at that stage giving liberty to them to examine him as their defence witness at appropriate stage. 2. The plaintiffs had filed two applications, at Exhibit 44 and Exhibit 47. The application at Exhibit 47 was filed because the application at Exhibit 44 was not accompanied by an affidavit. In allowing the said application, the learned trial Court has observed that: "The plaintiffs are not parties to the said correspondence in any manner. The defendants have disputed the genuineness of these documents. However, no prejudice will be caused to the defendants, as the defendants will have ample opportunity to test the genuineness and veracity of these documents during the cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiffs. So also the defendants will have ample opportunity to lead evidence in defence on this aspect, as the defendants have also disputed the source of the copies of these documents and also the present status of these documents in the office of Canacona Municipal Council, as stated by the Chief Officer in his earlier referred reply." 3. It may be stated that the Chief Officer has also certified that the said documents are not available in the office of the Canacona Municipal Council. The plaintiffs also filed an affidavit in support of their contention that the said documents were not available. 4. Referring to Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, the learned trial Court has observed, and in my view rightly, that since originals have been lost, secondary evidence can be given relating to such documents. In the light of that, I do not find this is a fit case to interfere with either of the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, in extra ordinary jurisdiction. Petition dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH