1

wp5990-13.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.5990 /2013

Vishnu Dnyaneshwar Sonawane

.. Petitioner

V/s

Bhimrao Shrirang Sonawane

and others

.. Respondents

....

Shri S.S.Jadhavar, Adv.for petitioner.

Shri K.K.Kulkarni,Adv.for Respondent nos.3 & 4.

...

CORAM :S.V.GANGAPURWALA J.

DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2014.

PER COURT :

The petitioner assails the order rejecting application for

exhibiting certified copy of the sale deed [Exh.79] and order

rejecting application for adducing secondary evidence Exh.71.

Mr.Jadhavar, learned counsel submits that the certified copy of the

sale deed is a public document, the same be exhibited. It is

certified copy issued by the Sub Registrar maintaining the public

record.

2]

The learned counsel further contends that even otherwise

the exhibition of the registered sale deed is not disputed by

2

wp5990-13.odt

respondent nos.3 and 4. In light of that, secondary evidence ought

to have been allowed.

3]

Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel submits that certified copy of

the sale deed is not a public document but it is a certified copy of a

private document. Learned counsel further contends that the

ingredients of Section 65 of the Evidence Act are not complied so

as to allow petitioner to adduce secondary evidence. The contents

of the sale deed are not admitted by respondents. The Court has

rightly passed the order. In the present petition, the petitioner has

filed affidavit stating that the original sale deed was produced in

R.C.S.No.97/90 filed by present respondent no.3. However, the

sale deed is not available in the said file. The existence of the sale

deed is not disputed by respondent nos.3 and 4. In light of that,

there was no impediment to allow the petitioner to adduce

secondary evidence.

4]

I have gone through the order. The sale deed is said to be

executed on 25/1/74. The contents of the sale deed are disputed.

The petitioner states that the same is filed in R.C.S.No.97/90. The

petitioner can call the original file. If the documents are not

destroyed, the same can be available in the said file. If the sale

deed is not in file, then petitioner can file fresh application seeking

permission to adduce secondary evidence. The Court would

consider the fact that respondent nos.3 and 4 have not disputed

the existence of the document. The certified copy of the sale deed

3

wp5990-13.odt

being a private document, the certified copy of private document

cannot be directly admissible in evidence. The petitioner may take

such steps to prove it.

5]

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid

observations. No costs.

[S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.]

umg/