1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2984 OF 2009 1 Anil s/o Dattatraya Bhadane (Patil), age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture; 2 Dattatraya s/o Waman Bhadane (Patil), age: 67 years, Occ: Agriculture, Both R/o Nagaon, Tq. & District Dhule. Petitioner Versus 1 Ramrao s/o Sitaram Patil, age: 79 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Ram Surgical Hospital, Budgujar Plots, Parola Road, Dhule. 2 Ramrao Bajirao Patil, (since deceased, through L.Rs. and representatives) 2-A Smt.Nirabai wd/o Ramrao Patil, age: major, Occ: Household; 2-B Vijaykumar s/o Ramrao Patill, age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture; Both R/o Kuthul, Tq. And District Dhule. Respondents Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for petitioners. Mr.S.P.Shah, advocate for Respondent No.1. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2259 OF 2009 2 Ramrao s/o Sitaram Patil, age: 79 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Ram Surgical Hospital, Budgujar Plots, Parola Road, Dhule. Petitioner Versus 1 Anil s/o Dattatraya Bhadane (Patil), age: 40 years, Occ: Business & Agriculture; 2 Dattatraya s/o Waman Bhadane (Patil), age: 67 years, Occ: Business & Agriculture, Both R/o Nagaon, Tq. & District Dhule. 3 Ramrao Bajirao Patil, (deceased, through legal representatives) 3-A Smt.Nirabai wd/o Ramrao Patil, age: Adult, Occ: Household; 3-B Vijaykumar s/o Ramrao Patill, age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture; Nos.3-A & 3-B residing at Kauthul, Taluka and District Dhule. Respondents Mr.S.P.Shah, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 06th April, 2010. P.C.: 1 Original defendants No.1 & 2 have raised objection to the 3 interlocutory order dated 31.01.2009 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule, below Exhibit-132 in Regular Civil Suit No.140/2006, whereby plaintiff is permitted to lead secondary evidence in respect of sale deed dated 19.06.1984. However, request made by plaintiff for exhibiting certified copy of sale deed has been turned down by the trial Court. Plaintiff, in turn, raised challenge to the part of the order passed by the trial Court refusing to exhibit certified copy of sale deed, which is kept on the record of Writ Petition No. 2259/2009. 2 It is not necessary to go into factual aspects of the matter. Suffice it, however, to note that application presented by plaintiff requesting the Court to permit him to lead secondary evidence in respect of sale deed executed in the year 1984 has been considered favourably. Plaintiff, in his application, has stated that original sale deed was sent to Pune for Photo- Sinco and since thereafter original document has not been received by him. In order to prove registration of the document, plaintiff has examined an official from the office of Sub-Registrar, Dhule, who has stated about execution of sale deed. Plaintiff has also placed on record certified copy of sale deed. Considering contentions raised in the application, trial Court found that the case put up by plaintiff comes within the purview of Section 65 of Evidence Act and as such permitted him to lead secondary evidence. 3 The main grievance of defendants is that earlier such request was made by the plaintiff by tendering an application at Exhibit-101, but at that stage, request made by plaintiff to permit him to lead secondary evidence has been turned down by the trial Court. 4 It appears that after recording evidence of official from the 4 office of Sub-Registrar and after producing certified copy of sale deed in question, plaintiff has repeated his request and trial Court has considered same, which, according to me, rightly so. The trial Court was also justified in refusing to exhibit certified copy of sale deed, for the reason that attesting witness, or party to the document, has not deposed about contents of the document. The trial Court, therefore, observed that at the present stage of proceedings, certified copy of sale deed cannot be exhibited. Nonetheless, on fulfillment of requirements for exhibiting the document, request of the plaintiff can be taken into account by the trial Court. No interference is required to be caused at this interlocutory stage of the proceedings in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5 Both the Petitions stand disposed of. All the points agitated by respective parties at interlocutory stage are specifically kept open. The trial Court was earlier directed by this Court to dispose of the suit by December 2009, however, as the interlocutory proceedings are carried to this Court, the trial Court, apparently, could not dispose of the suit. In this view of the matter, trial Court is directed to decide pending suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably by the end of December 2010. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp298409