MENINO FERNANDES Vs. DIPIKA SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Sardessai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) On 25th September, 2008, this Court issued notice to the respondent for final disposal of the petition at the admission stage. Hence, Rule. Heard forthwith.

(3.) When the mat ter came up for evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed an applicat ion dat ed24. 07. 2008 seeking to adduce secondary evidence in respect of above referred three documents on the ground that originals of the said documents, were not passed on to him by his wife Philomena and as such he was not in possession of the originals of the said documents. The applicat ion was opposed by the defendants and by the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the applicat ion holding that no case was made out by the defendant for leading secondary evidence. The Trial Court held that none of the clauses namely (a) to (g) of Section 65 of Evidence Act, was at tracted and as such the plaintiff could not be permitted to lead secondary evidence. According to Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, the copies of the above referred three documents were produced at the stage of production of the documents in the suit. This position has not been disputed by Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent.