IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4218 OF 2008 Sou.Severina Paul Madhale ...Petitioner V/s. Anthony Joshpaul Borgis (D/H) a) Ilda Anthony Borgis & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mrs.A.R.S.Baxi for Petitioner. Mr.A.A.Garge for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 17, 2009. MARCH 17, 2009. MARCH 17, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the discretionary order passed by the Court below dated 28th February 2008 below Exhibit 58 in R.C.S. No.191 of 2003 thereby allowing the Application preferred by the Respondents/Plaintiffs to produce on record Will Deed along with list 3/3 as : 2 : secondary evidence. The argument of the Petitioner is that the reason recorded by the Court below in Paragraph 4 to allow the said document to be treated as secondary evidence is inappropriate. It is not possible to accept this submission. The Court below has recorded good reasons in Paragraph 4 as to why the Respondents were permitted to produce copy of the Will Deed as secondary evidence. That is a possible view. 3. It was then contended that assuming that document could be permitted to be taken on record as secondary evidence, the Court below has exceeded jurisdiction in allowing the Plaintiffs to prove the document, which was neither the relief claimed and more so the recording of evidence was already closed. Insofar as this grievance is concerned, the same will have to be rejected for the simple reason that once the Court has allowed the party to produce new document it is but appropriate to permit the said party to prove the contents of the said document. That is the course adopted by the Trial Court which is obviously discretionary order. No interference with that approach is warranted. : 3 : 4. Counsel for the Petitioner would then contend the question of proving the contents of the Will Deed does not arise as the Respondents have admitted the fact that the said Will has been subsequently cancelled by their father on 22nd May 1997. To buttress this submission reliance is placed on the cross-examination. In the cross-examination the Respondents have merely conceded the fact that they had received some notice dated 22nd May 1997 and agreed to produce the same before the Court. To specific question put during cross, the Respondents have denied the suggestion that the said notice was for cancellation of Will. It would have been a different matter if the Petitioner was able to show that the said communication dated 22nd May 1997 has already been exhibited and proved by the Petitioner. It necessarily follows that the argument of the Petitioner is merely on the basis of suggestion and not admission of the Respondents that the concerned Will Deed has been cancelled. Thus understood, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. Dismissed. : 4 : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.