1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7122 OF 2009 Revnisiddhppa Gursiddhppa Loni. .. Petitioner Vs Vishwanath Virapakshppa Avasekar, Since deceased, through his legal heirs - (a) Arvind Vishwanath Avasekar & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Anant Vadgaonkar for the Petitioner. Shri S.D. Thokade for Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e). Shri R.S. Alanye for Respondent No.5. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5. 2. The Petitioner is the original Defendant No.5. While disposing of the Writ Petition No.3543 of 1986 arising out of the same suit, this Court directed that the alleged original Sale Deed in respect of the suit premises shall be placed on record of the suit. The Petitioner made an application at Exhibit-280 seeking permission to lead secondary evidence of the Sale Deed No.3052/65 in the form of a copy of the said document. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. It must be 2 noted here that even the original Plaintiff has filed an application for leading secondary evidence of the Sale Deed as well as a Will. 3. I find that a specific case of the Petitioner is that the original sale deed was on record of the suit and the same has been withdrawn by the other defendants. There is no statement made in the application as well as in the Petition that the Petitioner had given a notice to produce the said document to the concerned defendants who have allegedly withdrawn the Sale Deed. Without giving notice to produce the document, the application made for seeking permission to lead secondary evidence was premature. 4. Therefore, it will be open for the Petitioner to give a notice to produce the document to the concerned Defendants. If the document is not produced after service of the notice to produce the document, it will be open for the Petitioner to make a fresh application for seeking permission to lead secondary evidence of the Sale Deed. If such fresh application is made, the same shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the impugned order dated 17th July, 2009. The findings recorded in the impugned order will not come in the way of the Petitioner for prosecuting a fresh application as aforesaid. The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms. (A.S.OKA, J)