MANAV ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. RAVI GOYALversusGODREJ-GE APPLIANCES LTD.

                                                                       15-wp-9177-2015.doc




            varsha           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 9177 OF 2015


                     Manav Enterprises through its Partner Mr. … Petitioner
                     Ravi Goyal
                                  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

        Digitally
        signed by
        VARSHA
VARSHA VIJAY
                     ORDER:
VIJAY   RAJGURU
RAJGURU Date:
        2026.03.10
        18:23:31
        +0530

                     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 Anr 1. 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
                                                 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 17 th

      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