( 1 ) 937 WP 3100 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 937 WRIT PETITION NO. 3100 OF 2024 BALASAHEB RUSTUMRAO PAWADE AND ANOTHER VERSUS KASHIBAI RANGNATH PAWADE ... Mr. G. T. Kharate, Advocate for the Petitioners … CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : 28.08.2026 PER COURT :- . In Regular Civil Suit No.58 of 2016 pending before learned Civil Judge Juniro Division Basmat, District Hingoli the defendants filed an application below Exhibit-57 seeking permission to lead secondary evidence vide notarised documents bearing Nos.3534 of 2012 and 3535 of 2023. The said application came to be turned down after hearing both the parties vide impugned order dated 07.11.2023. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 2. Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the documents to be tendered in evidence. Section 63 talks about secondary evidence which reads thus : 2026:BHC-AUG:39342 ( 2 ) 937 WP 3100 OF 2024 “63. Secondary evidence.—Secondary evidence means and includes— (1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained; (2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies; (3) copies made from or compared with the original; (4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them; (5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.” 3. Looking to the nature of the documents which are sought to be produced as secondary evidence, it would apparently show that those documents do not fulfill the requirements under Section 63 of the 1874 Act. The Trial Court in paragraph Nos.12 to 14 has elaborately discussed the scope of Sections 62 and 63 and has observed that the application could not be allowed. I do not find any infirmity in those findings. 4. Resultantly, no interference by this Court is called for. 5. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] PRW