1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 2518 OF 2000 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1434 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2518 OF 2000 Bharturam G. Rana ...Plaintiff Vs. Savtridevi P. Rana and Ors. ...Defendants ----- Mr. M.S. Dehlvi for Plaintiff Mr. P.N. Singh i/b. Vyas and Bhalwal for Defendant Nos.1 and 2. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 9TH OCTOBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. 2. The Plaintiff has taken out this Chamber Summons seeking leave of this Court to lead secondary evidence and to permit him to rely upon the photocopies of the original documents and letters and correspondence which were annexed to the compilation of documents in this suit and more particularly described in Schedule  A annexed to the plaint. 3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that all these 2 documents were annexed by him to the plaint, which were filed by him in the City Civil Court. It is submitted that the original documents were kept in the cupboard in the suit flat, however, when he had gone out of station, according to him, the Defendant broke open the lock of the said cupboard and removed the original documents. He submitted that he had filed a police complaint dated 20.11.1999 and asked the police to direct the Defendant to produce the said documents. Secondly, a letter which was written to the Senior Inspector of Police, Tilak Nagar Police Station, Chembur on 23.11.1999. He, therefore, submitted that since these original documents were removed by the Defendant and xerox copies were already annexed to the plaint which is filed in City Civil Court in S.C.Suit No.4596 of 1998, the Plaintiff may be permitted to produce these documents as secondary evidence. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant has vehemently opposed the said submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff. He submitted that the said copies are the xerox copies which were annexed, cannot be now produced as secondary evidence. He further submitted that these documents cannot be taken on record since they are barred by limitation. Therefore, the Plaintiff should not be permitted to rely on these documents. He 3 further denied the allegations made by the Plaintiff that the Defendant had removed these documents from the Plaintiff s cupboard. 5. In my view, since these documents were annexed to the plaint filed by the Plaintiff in the City Civil Court and later on a complaint was filed by the Plaintiff with the Chembur Police Station, it does appear that the said documents are no longer in his possession. The existence of the said documents, however, establish the fact that these documents were annexed to the plaint filed in the City Civil Court. Under these circumstances, therefore, the Plaintiff has made out the case for bringing these documents by way of record as secondary evidence. It is, however, clarified that the Defendant is permitted to cross examine the Plaintif in respect of these documents and they will be taken on record subject to relevancy. The probative value of these documents will be decided at the time of hearing of the suit. 6. Chamber Summons is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)