IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12386 OF 2026 Sarfaraz Sharafali Furniturewalla .... Petitioner Vs. Afshan Sharafali Ashok Kumar & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Rustom Pardiwalla i/b Smt. Shilpa Kamble for Petitioner. Mr. Drupad Patil a/w Zaid S. Ansari, Mangesh R. i/b Zaid S. Ansari and Associates for Respondents 1 and 2. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 23rd September 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, by the impugned order, the Trial Court has effectively circumvented the earlier directions issued by it vide order dated 7th January 2026, which directions were subsequently confirmed by this Court vide order dated 9th March 2026. By the said orders, directions were issued for production of the current passports, Voter IDs, driving licenses and Aadhaar cards of her husband. Plaintiff No.2 was specifically directed to produce the latest passport, Aadhaar cards, driving licenses and Voter IDs of himself, his wife and his other children. 1/3 29 WP 12386.26.doc Dusane 3. Thereafter, an application came to be filed before the Trial Court stating that the husband of Plaintiff No.1 and her daughter are residing abroad, the husband being in the U.S.A. and the daughter being in Dubai, and that it was not possible to produce the original documents of the husband as he was residing outside India and his travel documents were required for his travel. It was further stated that the passport of the daughter had expired and that she had applied for a fresh passport, which had not yet been received. 4. In view thereof, permission was sought to lead secondary evidence by producing certified copies of the passports, duly endorsed/attested by the concerned Embassy. 5. The Application is allowed by the trial Court on the conditions as mentioned in the order. “1. The application Exh.196 is allowed. 2. Plaintiff is permitted to tender the copies of passport and driving license of her husband and passport of her daughter as secondary evidence subject to laying proper foundational evidence in accordance with the law during her oral evidence. 3. The grant of this leave does not automatically dispense with the proof of execution, correctness or authenticity of the documents. All the objections of defendant no. 2 regarding admissibility, mode of proof and evidentiary value kept open to be decided at the final stage of suit.” 2/3 29 WP 12386.26.doc Dusane 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order passed by the Trial Court on 14th August 2026 circumvents the earlier order passed by the Trial Court itself. This Court, however, is unable to agree with the said submission. The Trial Court has specifically observed that the foundational facts necessary for leading secondary evidence must first be established in the course of evidence. Unless such foundational facts are duly established, secondary evidence cannot be admitted or relied upon. 7. The issue regarding the admissibility of the secondary evidence is kept open to be considered and decided at the final stage of the suit. 8. The correctness and authenticity of the documents so produced would still have to be established, and their evidentiary value and effect would have to be considered by the Court at the stage of final hearing. 9. In view of the foregoing observations, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The same is accordingly dismissed. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ] 3/3 29 WP 12386.26.doc Dusane BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2026.09.29 14:53:56 +0530