1 wp1820.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 1820 of 2011 Krushna Laxman Thorvat & ors. ... Petitioner v/s. Sou. Malutai Mahado More & ors. ... Respondents Mr. Prashant Bhavake advocate i/b. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the petitioner. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- MARCH 08, 2011. P.C. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 19th October, 2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for calling for the written-statement filed in another suit came to be rejected. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of sub Rule (3), Rule 10 of Order 13 since the Court cannot use in evidence any document which under the law of evidence, would be inadmissible in the suit, it was necessary that original written statement to have been called for by the Court. 2 wp1820.11.sxw 3. The learned trial Court has given sound and cogent reasons. It is held that if the petitioner applies for certified copy of the said document, he can very well get the same and place on the record. 4. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that in view of sub Rule (3) of Rule 10 of Order 13, that certified copy of the said written statement cannot be read in evidence is concerned, the contention appears to be in total ignorance of provisions of Section 74, 76 and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act. 5. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Writ Petition is, therefore, without any merit and as such rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)