JUDGMENT : Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 2-3-2015 passed below Exhibit 54 by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 107 of 2012. The trial Court has rejected the application filed by the defendant under section 65 of the Evidence Act for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence. The rejection is on the ground that the contents regarding loss of original document pleaded in the application are vague, the photostat copy of the document sought to be produced is not authenticated. 3. Shri Mardikar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - original plaintiff has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Bank of Baroda, Bombay vs. Shree Moti Industries, Bombay and others, reported in 2009(1) Mh.L.J. 282 , more particularly, paragraphs 25 to 27 therein. The Court has held that if anybody wants to lead secondary evidence, two things are required to be proved; (i) there must be evidence of the existence of the original documents, and (ii) there must be evidence of their loss. He submits that the trial Court has held that the document is not authenticated and this view is in conformity with the aforestated decision. 4. The proposition laid down in the said decision cannot be disputed. However, in the present case, the Court is required to consider the application under section 65 of the Evidence Act for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence, and the contents of the application can be established only if the party is permitted to enter the witness box, and is subjected to cross-examination. The veracity of the statements made by the party seeking permission to lead secondary evidence has to be tested on the cross-examination by the other side. Otherwise there would be miscarriage of justice. The two things contemplated by the aforestated decision cannot be proved unless party concerned is permitted to enter the witness box and/or examine the witnesses who are also subjected to cross-examination by adversarials. As and when photostat copy of the document is tendered in evidence, its admissibility in evidence or whether it can be marked as an Exhibit can be decided. As and when photostat copy of the document is tendered in evidence, its admissibility in evidence or whether it can be marked as an Exhibit can be decided. Similarly, it is after the evidence is led, the Court can consider the question as to whether the evidence so led is admissible in law as secondary evidence. The matter can be tested thereafter in the light of the guidelines laid down by this Court in the judgment cited supra. Till then the application has to be kept pending. The Court has committed an error in refusing to grant permission to the party to enter the witness box, and/or examine the witnesses in support of the claim made in such application. The order impugned cannot therefore, be sustained. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 2-3-2015 passed below Exhibit 54 by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 107 of 2012, is hereby quashed and set aside. The trial Court shall permit the parties to enter the witness box, and/or to examine witnesses who shall be subjected to cross-examination, and thereafter the application at exhibit 54 shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. All questions regarding admissibility of such evidence are kept open. The trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously. No costs.