15-wp-9177-2015.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9177 OF 2015 Manav Enterprises through its Partner Mr. Ravi Goyal … Petitioner vs. Godrej Ge Appliances Ltd … Respondent Ms. Sayali Puri a/w. Mr. Akash Singh a/w. Mr. Shreyas Thakur i/b. M.S. Bodhanwalla and Co., for Petitioner in Wps. Mr. Dheer Sampat i/b. M.V. Kini and Co., for the Respondent. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 4th MARCH 2026 ORDER: 1. This petition is filed by the original plaintiff to challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff for leave to produce secondary evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this court in Kartik Gangadhar Bhat Vs. Nirmala Namdeo Wagh and Anr1. She submits that the application to lead secondary evidence was not necessary and that the plaintiff was entitled at the time of adducing evidence to make out the case for producing the documents as secondary evidence. She therefore submits that in view of the well-settled legal 1 2018 (1) Mh.L.J 726 Page no. 1 of 4 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2026.03.10 18:23:31 +0530 15-wp-9177-2015.doc principle in the decision of the Kartik Gangadhar Bhat, the plaintiff be permitted to lead oral evidence, and at the time of adducing oral evidence, the plaintiff be permitted to produce the documents as per the list of documents in the plaint. She therefore submits that the petitioner(plaintiff) be permitted to withdraw Notice of Motion No. 3151 of 2014 with liberty to lead secondary evidence at the time of recording evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. 2. In view of the well-settled legal principle for producing documents by way of secondary evidence as settled in the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the respondent submits that if such leave is granted, all contentions of the parties be kept open, including raising objections on admissibility and relevancy of such secondary evidence. 3. There is no dispute that after the issues were framed, the plaintiff had not yet led evidence. Before any evidence was adduced, the plaintiff filed Notice of Motion No. 3151 of 2014 seeking permission to produce all the documents listed in the plaint as secondary evidence. In the aforesaid decision, this court has held that the application for permission to lead evidence is neither desirable nor necessary, and that it is always open to the parties to lead evidence before the trial court at the time of recording Page no. 2 of 4 15-wp-9177-2015.doc evidence. In paragraph nos. 7 to 11, the procedure required to be followed to produce the document by way of secondary evidence is explained. 4. In the present case, since the plaintiff has not yet adduced any evidence, it would be open for the plaintiff to lead evidence and, at the time of leading evidence, make out the case for producing documents as secondary evidence on the ground that the original documents are not available. In the present case, the plaintiff has contended in the notice of motion that, since the originals were destroyed, the plaintiff needs permission to produce the documents by way of secondary evidence. Such permission by way of a separate application would not be necessary. However, the plaintiff seeking to produce secondary evidence is required to depose before the court to make out the case for the admissibility of secondary evidence. Hence, in view of the stage at which the notice of motion was filed, it was not necessary to decide whether the plaintiff would be entitled to lead secondary evidence. The same needs to be considered at the time of recording evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. Hence, in view of the legal principles settled by this court in Kartik Gangadhar Bhat, the leave as prayed for by the plaintiff can be granted by keeping all the contentions of the parties open. Page no. 3 of 4 15-wp-9177-2015.doc 5. The writ petition is therefore disposed of by passing the following order: I) The plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the Notice of Motion No. 3151 of 2014 with liberty to lead evidence, and at the time of leading evidence, would be at liberty to lead such secondary evidence as contemplated under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 60 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Hence, the impugned order dated 17th February 2015, passed in Notice of Motion No. 3151 of 2014, is quashed and set aside. II) It is clarified that all rival contentions of the parties, including the defendant’s right to raise objections on admissibility and relevancy of such secondary evidence, are kept open to be decided by the trial court at the appropriate stage of recording evidence. III) The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 4 of 4