1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 204 OF 2010 (Muktamani G. Goyal & Anr. vs. Sanjay M. Gupta & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 10, 2010. Heard Shri Khati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Naidu, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Shri Gulhane, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 6 and Shri Lohiya, learned counsel for respondent No.8. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, has on 04.12.2009 permitted the respondent – plaintiff to lead secondary evidence under Section 63 of Evidence Act in relation to agreement to sale dated 07.05.1993. The respondent – plaintiff contended that original document was placed on record and its last page has gone missing. This stand was objected to by the petitioner – defendant. The learned counsel contends that there was no foundation laid before the trial Court to enable the respondent to lead secondary evidence. He is relying upon the judgment of this Court dated 23.06.2009 in Writ Petition No. 903 of 2009. There the stand of the petitioner, who wanted to lead secondary evidence was 2 that he was under bonafide impression that the original agreement of sale was already placed on record and at the time of examination of witness (PW-1 there), it was was noticed that original agreement of sale was not filed and therefore the xerox copy could not be exhibited. The petitioners claimed that then they made search and could not trace it out. This story was appreciated by the Court to show that it was not substantiated and there was no foundation for it. In present matter, the filing of original agreement (first three pages) is not in dispute. As per objection raised by the petitioners – defendants, last page appears to be missing but there is nothing either before the trial Court or before this Court to presume that that page was not filed on record. The stand that complete document was placed on record was taken on 23.06.1999 itself. In the light of this material, the trial Court has permitted the respondent – plaintiff to lead secondary evidence. I do not find any perversity in the matter. The anxiety expressed by the petitioner, however, can be taken care of in cross examination by demonstrating that such original was never in existence and was never filed in Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though loss was noticed in 1999, no steps were taken to lead secondary evidence till filing of application at Exh. 61. The grievance of loss was 3 already made and hence argument is misconceived. With this, I do not find any case made out warranting any interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.