1 WP / 9993 / 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1033 WRIT PETITION NO. 9993 OF 2023 LAXMAN DEVIDAS DOIPHODE VERSUS ANURADHA LAXMAN BHALERAO ... Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay A. Mane Advocate for the respondent : Mr. S.M. Kamble ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 17 JANUARY 2026 PER COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 05.04.2023 passed below Exhibit – 89 by the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Jintur in RCS No. 121 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner - plaintiff seeking permission to lead secondary evidence, came to be rejected. 3. In the application, it is specifically stated that the sale deeds No. 1390/1992 and 1358/1993 were misplaced while constructing the plaintiff’s house and, therefore, he sought permission to lead secondary evidence. 4. The trial Court rejected the said application by observing that the plaintiff has merely stated that he has lost the original sale deed during construction. It was the duty of the plaintiff to give details in respect of original sale deeds but he failed to do so and he vaguely 2026:BHC-AUG:2502 2 WP / 9993 / 2023 submitted that the sale deeds have been lost. He also failed to state that he made appropriate search for the original sale deeds and exhausted all the sources for the search. Based on these observations, the application was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by the trial Court by submitting that the plaintiff ought to have given some details about the sale deeds and that those were not traceable. It was expected on the part of the plaintiff to give reasons and as no reasons were given, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, once the petitioner - plaintiff has come with a specific case that the original sale deeds were misplaced during the construction of house, an opportunity ought to have been given to him to lead the secondary evidence in view of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The trial Court should have permitted to lead the secondary evidence. Learned trial Court recorded a finding that the petitioner has not given details about the said sale deeds, such observations are contrary to section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and, therefore, I am inclined to allow the present petition by setting aside the order passed below exhibit - 89. 7. Writ Petition is allowed. dated 05.04.2023 passed below Exhibit – 89 by the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Jintur in RCS No. 121 of 2012, is quashed and set aside. 3 WP / 9993 / 2023 8. Both the learned counsel submitted that RCS No. 121 of 2012, may be expedited. 9. Trial Court shall decide the RCS within a period of one year from today. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE arp/