:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3707 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 3707 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 3707 OF 2009 Larsen & Toubro Limited. ... Petitioner. V/s. Kiran Parmar. ... Respondent. Mr. Durgesh Khanapurkar i/b. M/s. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 21ST 21ST 21ST APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Mentioned. Not on Board. By consent of parties, taken up forthwith for passing orders. 2. The Impugned Order is passed on an application made by the Petitioner-Plaintiff for permission to lead Secondary Evidence. The Trial Court has not adverted to the reasons which are set out in the application made by the Petitioner - Plaintiff and under an erroneous assumption, rejected the subject application. 3. The Petitioner - Plaintiff applied to the Trial Court for the abovementioned relief and set out grounds in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application. The application was also supported by an affidavit. In such circumstances, the Trial Court was obliged to consider the same in accordance with Section 63 and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the relief could have been granted in terms of Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act. In my view, considering the peculiar facts of this case, the :2: Trial Court should have applied its mind to the contents of the application and the reasons set out therein in the light of the relevant statuory provisions. The Trial Court was obliged to consider this application in the light of the submissions made in the application. Instead, it has proceeded on the erroneous presumption that the documents are required for the business purpose. The documents are required by the Petitioner-Plaintiff for being filed in several courts where legal proceedings are instituted on the basis of their Registered Trade Mark. In some cases, the documents are already filed. In these circumstances, the Trial Court should have consider the matter in the light of the material produced and not on some assumptions. 4. The order under challenge therefore, cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside and the Trial Court is directed to decide the application made by the Petitioner - Plaintiff afresh in accordance with law. The Trial Court should decide this application as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two weeks from the production of a copy of the order passed by this Court. It should not influence itself by its earlier observations. 5. The Petition is allowed accordingly. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)