SURESH Vs. PARAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 02.03.2015 passed below Exhibit 54 by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No.107 of 2012. The trial court has rejected the application filed by the defendant under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence. The rejection is on the ground that the contents regarding loss of original document pleaded in the application are vague, the photostat copy of the document sought to be produced is not authenticated.

(3.) Shri Mardikar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent original plaintiff has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Bank of Baroda, Bombay vs. Shree Moti Industries, Bombay and others, 2009 1 MhLJ 282, more particularly, paragraphs 25 to 27 therein. The court has held that if anybody wants to lead secondary evidence, two things are required to be proved; (i) there must be evidence of the existence of the original documents, and (ii) there must be evidence of their loss. He submits that the trial court has held that the document is not authenticated and this view is in conformity with the aforestated decision.