1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6493 OF 2005 [Madhukar Gopalrao Choudhari ..vs.. Bapurao Gopalrao Chaudhari & ors - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Deshpande , counsel for the applicant . CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 05, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division Ashti, dated 10.11.2005 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for permission to lead secondary evidence. The petitioner is the original defendant. The defendant had moved an application for permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the script which was prepared prior to the partition. The so called rough script was filed on record along with list at Exhibit 52. It is necessary to note that the plaintiff had produced the original partition deed on record. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had avoided to file the necessary documents on record and he had prepared a false copy of the said document and wanted to prove it by tendering secondary evidence. The trial court rightly observed that the document for which the defendant was seeking permission to lead secondary evidence was a xerox copy of the alleged rough script of the partition deed. The trial court rightly observed that though in the cross examination, the plaintiff had admitted that a rough script was prepared before 2 the partition was effected, he had denied that both the parties had signed on the rough script. It was not admitted by the plaintiff that the original rough script was in his possession. The defendant had also not mentioned in the application, for permission to tender secondary evidence as to how and when he had got the xerox copy of the rough script which was prepared prior to the partition. The trial court perused the application for permission to tender secondary evidence and found that the grounds mentioned in the application were may not sufficient for permitting the defendant to lead secondary evidence on the xerox copy of the so called rough script which was prepared prior to the partition. Since the conditions for permitting the defendant to tender secondary evidence on the document were not satisfied, in this case, the trial court rightly rejected the application. The order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division on 10.11.2005 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP