1 wp 4049.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4049 OF 2011 Dineshkumar Chiranjilal Papruniya and others .. Petitioners Versus Shivshankar Gurupadappa Tattapure and others .. Respondents Shri P. G. Gunale, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S. P. Urgunde, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 09TH AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petition is filed against the order of rejecting the application for adducing secondary evidence. The petitioners had filed an application for adducing the secondary evidence of a sale deed. The certified copy of which was filed on record. The said application was filed on the ground that the original is not traceable. Said application is rejected. 2. Shri Gunale, the learned counsel states that it was within 2 wp 4049.11 the power of the Court to permit the petitioners to adduce the secondary evidence. The petitioners had made out the case for leading secondary evidence. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Anil Balasaheb Murde Vs. Adinath Trimbak Bodkhe reported in 2007(2) Mh. L. J. 406. The learned counsel contends that he would prove the same as per Section 136 of the Evidence Act. It was for the Court to decide the admissibility of the said document. 3. Shri Urgunde, the learned counsel for respondents submits that the Trial Court has properly considered the application and rightly rejected the same. The petitioners have not made out any case to bring it within the ambit of the Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act. No details are given. The application is as vague as it could be. On the basis of such an application no permission to adduce secondary evidence can be given. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioners have to first establish the existence of original document and then have to satisfy the ingredients required for adducing secondary evidence. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone 3 wp 4049.11 through the application. The application is bereft of any particulars. No details are given about the factum of the said document not being traceable and steps taken in that regard. Only a vague averment is made. The Court below has not committed any error while rejecting the said application. 5. Shir Gunale, the learned counsel states that the petitioners be given an opportunity to file proper application. 6. Taking into consideration, the suit pertains to the relief of possession of an immovable property and the rights of the parties are involved in an immovable property, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to file an appropriate application with particulars. If such an application is filed for adducing secondary evidence, the Trial Court shall consider the said application on its own merits. The writ petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11