The main legal point established is the requirement for providing reasoning in judicial orders and the need for the trial court to consider the conditions under section 65 of the Evidence Act before allowing the production of a document as secondary evidence.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The challenge in this petition at the instance of the original defendant Nos. 1 to 6 is to the order dated 19-7-2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao, whereby, application dated 29-8-2013 in Special Civil Suit No. 102/2001/A filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the original plaintiffs, for production of the document (D-20) has been allowed and the same is directed to be “treated as a secondary evidence”. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are original defendant Nos. 7 to 9 before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus : That the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that the final judgment/order dated 15-3-2000 passed in inventory proceedings No. 72/1998 approving the partition, be declared as null and void and for injunction, etc. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are also seeking a declaration that the second document carrying the oval seal on its front part at Exhibit 82 allegedly made by Ms. Radha Timblo, is forged and fabricated.

4. It appears that the learned trial Court summoned Ms. Dalia Dias, the Chief Manager of Corporation Bank, Margao as a Court witness who was examined on 12-1-2011 purportedly “under section 165 of the Evidence Act”. The said witness stated that Advocate Shridhar R. Chodankar ‘may be’, one of the panel members of the Bank, in the year 2002. The witness was shown Vakalatnama (14-D) of advocate Chodankar, as representing the Bank and the witness agreed that the seal appearing on the said Vakalatnama, is of the Corporation Bank, Margao but she stated that she cannot identify the signature of the Manager, who signed the same. In so far as the material controversy involved in this petition is concerned the witness was shown xerox copies of two applications (D-20) in the file and she stated that the xerox copies were produced in the Court on 23-7-2004 by Advocate Chodankar, on behalf of the Bank. The witness also admitted about a letter dated 23-7-2008 (69-D) sent to the Corporation Bank.

5. The witness stated that as per the letter dated 23-7-2008, the two original applications which are now admitted in evidence at exhibit 82 were produced by the Bank. The witness was thereafter asked to explain the discrepancy between the xerox copy of the said application (in respect of Radha Timblo) which is at D-20 and the original of the said applications which are at exhibit 82. The witness stated that handwriting is different as also the signature of the applicant is different and the seal also differs.

6. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs filed an application before the learned trial Court on 29-8-2013, contending that Ms. Dalia Dias, during the course of her deposition, has admitted about advocate Chodankar having produced the xerox copies of the two applications (D-20) and, therefore, “it stands proved that the copies were obtained by xeroxing the originals, which were in the Bank”. It was contended that no new exhibit number was given and therefore “by way of abundant caution” a separate exhibit number be given to the said copies or alternatively, if it is held that they are not exhibited, in evidence, then the same may be exhibited, ‘as secondary evidence’.

7. The application was opposed on behalf of the original defendants No. 1 and 2 and the defendants No. 3 to 6 by filing separate replies. It was denied that the documents can be exhibited or allowed to be produced by way of secondary evidence.

8. The learned trial Court on hearing the parties passed the following order on the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs on 19-7-2014 :-

“Heard both side learned Counsel. Document marked as Ex. D/20 herein is hereby allowed to produce with leave by this Court for reasons stated in the present application by the learned C