-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1706 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1824 OF 1995. Beeta Paint Industries. ..Plaintiff. Versus Shalimar Paints Limited. ..Defendant. Mrs. U. K. Shah i/b Mr. K. D. Shah for the plaintiff. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : January 19, 2010. P. C. : 1. This chamber summons is taken out by the plaintiff for permission to rely upon the copies of the documents referred to in the compilation of documents, with further prayer to take said documents on record as secondary evidence under section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act. 2. In the affidavit-in-support of the said chamber summons it is averred that the plaintiff initially filed Summons for Judgment No. 669 of 1995 and at the time of hearing of the said Summons for Judgment, i.e., on 3rd December 1996 the plaintiff had entrusted all the original documents to Shri. A. A. Jain, advocate. It is further averred that the said documents were also perused by the learned Judge who disposed of the said Summons for Judgment by granting unconditional leave to defend. The said -: 2 :- documents, however, subsequently have been lost or misplaced by the plaintiff and he could not trace out the documents inspite of all the efforts. These averments have not been controverted by the defendant either by appearing in the chamber summons or filing reply thereto. In that view of the matter, I find that the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of permission to allow it to rely upon the copies of the documents referred to in the compilation of documents. Chamber summons is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (R.V. MORE, J.)