JUDGMENT:- Heard respective counsel. 2. Rule. By consent. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned VI Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aurangabad. below Exhibit-94 in RegularCiviJ Suit No. 1087 of 2004, dated 15.9.2008. 4. Petitioners (plaintiffs) had filed the said suit for perpetual injunction. Two interim applications were filed in the said suit i.e. Exhibit-5, filed by petitioners seeking temporary injunction against respondents and Exhibit-18, by respondents, seeking temporary injunction against petitioners. Both applications have been decided. Exhibit-5 was allowed and Exhibit-18 was rejected. Aggrieved defendants filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.233 of 2004 and that came to be dismissed on 9.11.2005. 5. Application Exhibit-94 was filed by the plaintiffs in the trial court seeking permission to lead secondary evidence. Copy of this application is on record at Exhibit "D". This application is rejected by the trial court. 6. Shri. Solshe, learned Advocate for the petitioners has invited my attention to page 24 of the compilation (paragraph No.l7). This is part of the order passed below Exhibits-5 and 18. In paragraph No.7, reference to affidavit dated 9.12.2004 filed by the plaintiffs is made. Learned Judge has observed that custody of the document i.e. agreement is with the defendants. Shri. Solshe further submits that the rent agreement is in possession of defendants and therefore. by this application Exhibit-941D pennission to lead secondary evidence is sought for. According to Shri. Solshe, learned Advocate. the petitioners cause is governed by section 65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 7. Shri. Shinde, learned Advocate appearing for respondents has supported the order passed by the trial court. 8. Production and impounding the document is a matter of Order 13 of Civil Procedure Code ("CPC"). "Secondary evidence" is the expression provided under section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 65(a) provides that when the original IS shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66. such person does not produce it they secondary evidence may be given of the existence. condition or contents of a document. 9. such person does not produce it they secondary evidence may be given of the existence. condition or contents of a document. 9. Shri. Solshe, learned Advocate for respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Nawab Singh Vs. Inderjit Kanr [ AIR 1999 SC 1668 ]. Paragraph No.2 of the judgment records factual matrix in the said case. The Supreme Court has recorded a fact that at the trial, after having taken fourteen adjournments for adducing the evidence, an application was filed by the applicant seeking rent note from the custody of the opponent, which came to be rejected by the trial court. Thus, it is apparent from the said judgment that the custody of the document in that case was with the adversary and appellant therein had sought production of the document. In the case on hand, application Exhibit-941D filed by plaintiffs do not refer that the custody of original rent agreement is with the adversary i.e. defendants. However, the learned Judge seized with hearing of the suit, while deciding applications Exhibits-5 and 18, has referred affidavit of plaintiff Satyanarayan, making it clear that custody of the rent note has been alleged by the plaintiffs with defendants. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, petition can be partly allowed by quashing and setting aside the order impugned in this writ petition and granting liberty in favour of petitioners to file an appropriate application seeking permission for leading secondary evidence in view of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such an application. However, needs to be filed by the petitioners within two weeks. 10. In the result, writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned is quashed and set aside. The petitioners are permitted to file appropriate application supported by the affidavit, within parameters of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 within two weeks from today. On receipt of such an application, the trial Court shall hear the parties and dispose of the suit in accordance with the provisions of law. 11. Rule made partly absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.