1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4819 OF 2010 (Bholanath Charandas Sahu) -: VERSUS :- (Dilip Shrikrishna Paralkar) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri M. V. Masodkar Adv for petitioner. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 8, 2010. Heard. Petitioner filed application initially at Ex. 54 seeking leave to lead secondary evidence and that was withdrawn. Then he filed application at Ex. 57 giving notice to defendant to produce documents and when that application was to be considered he moved another application for permission to lead secondary evidence. Trial Court has looked into the controversy and noted that none of the documents in relation to which secondary evidence was sought were addressed to defendant. It therefore found that plaintiff was only interested in delaying the matter. It is to be noted that the suit is filed in the year 2001 and it was fixed for evidence since 2004 and trial Court has also noted that 2 plaintiff had been making new application on each occasion. After this order was passed on Ex. 57 on 17th August 2009 no challenge was raised and another application was moved on 31st August 2009 to review it. By order dated 22nd June 2010 the trial Court has rejected that application. The trial Court has found that even ingredients of Section 65 of the Evidence Act were not satisfied and there was no finding for leading secondary evidence. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity in the matter. I am not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. Petitioner is given liberty to move appropriate application if occasion arises. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. JUDGE SVK