1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 441 OF 2009 Hamidabi w/o Sk. Kadar .. PETITIONER VERSUS Shahinbegum w/o Haji Ismail & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.D. Sugdare , advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.I. Pathan, advocate for respondent no. 1. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 23 rd AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1 An application tendered by the petitioner seeking leave to lead secondary evidence in respect of an document stated to be in possession of original defendant no. 2 has been rejected by the Jt. Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Hingoli in view of order passed on 5-11-2004. The document in question is stated to be relinquishment deed which is an unregistered document. 2 Trial court has proceeded to reject the application only on the ground that the document is required to be compulsorily registered and, as 2 the document is not registered, permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of said document cannot be accorded. The sole reason recorded by the trial court in itself cannot be a criteria for turning down the application. Plaintiff / petitioner herein if chooses to lead secondary evidence respect of the said document, he has to satisfy the requirements laid down under sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act. Without entering into the merits of the controversy involved in the matter, the ends of justice would be met if leave is granted to the plaintiff / petitioner herein to approach the court with an appropriate request after observing the procedure laid down under sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act. Trial court shall, if such a request is made by the petitioner herein, proceed to consider the application on its own merit and in accordance with law. So far as this petition is concerned, at an interlocutory stage of the proceeding, no interference is called for. Petition stands rejected. 3 In view of disposal of the petition, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb/wp441.09.odt