SSP 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2084 OF 2010 Preeti Suresh Shinde ...Petitioner vs. Namrata Chandrashekhar Shinde & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde for the petitioner None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 22, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. At the instance of the petitioner, witness summons was issued to a hospital for production of record. The witness summons was duly served. However, the concerned witness did not appear and produce the record. Therefore, an application was made by the petitioner seeking permission to lead secondary evidence of the said documents on the basis of the xerox copies of the said documents on record of the suit. 2 Though reasons recorded in the impugned order are far from being satisfactory, at this stage, no interference is called for in as much as the petitioner can take steps against the concerned witness in accordance with Rule 10 of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. Even after taking steps accordingly, the documents are not produced, the petitioner can make a fresh application for leading secondary evidence. If such fresh application is made, the trial Court will decide the same on its own merits without being influenced by the impugned order dated 12th January 2010. 3 Subject to what is observed above, at this stage, SSP 2 no interference is called for. Petition is accordingly disposed of. 4 The trial Court is bound to grant a reasonable time to the petitioner to take steps in accordance with Rule 10 of Order XVI of the said Code. JUDGE