JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioners - original plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2019, passed by the trial Court by which Exhibit-28, filed by the plaintiffs, seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in Special Civil Suit No.331 of 2014, has been rejected.

3. The issue is as regards an "agreement to sell" dated 12.06.2014 (Isar Pavati). The plaintiffs have stated in their plaint that the said agreement to sell was signed between the parties and was notarised. It is admitted that the said document was not registered.

4. The defendants have submitted in paragraph no.26 of their Written Statement that such an "Isar Pavati" was actually executed on 12.06.2014. Similar admission is found specifically in paragraph no.6 of the plaint in RCS No.962 of 2014 filed by Bhimrao s/o Sandu Waghmare, who is defendant no.1 in the present suit.

5. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that on 19.09.2015, the trial Court allowed application Exhibit-19 filed by the plaintiffs seeking impounding of the notarised "Isar Pavati" dated 12.06.2014 under Section 34 of the Bombay S