1 Amrit Lal Taya vs. Additional District Judge(F.T.) NO.5, Udaipur & Ors. (D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W)No.337/08) Date of Order:- 24.09.2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.M.R.Singhvi, for the appellant. Mr.M.S.Singhvi, for the respondents. Heard Mr.M.R.Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.S.Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents. By the order impugned, the writ application filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed, affirming order passed by the court below, rejecting prayer of the plaintiff in terms of order under Order VI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff-appellant by filing an application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, prayed before the court below to allow him to produce a document (an affidavit sworn by late Shri Prabhulal Jain, who died on 10.4.07). The learned trial court having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the prayer saying that the document, as such was not admissible in evidence in terms of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. The order passed by the learned trial court, however, was affirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court taking the similar view. 2 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the witness late Shri Prabhulal Jain, could not be examined on account of his death and therefore, a necessity arose to bring on record his affidavit sworn, by way of evidence and therefore, the learned court below could have allowed the same for the ends of justice and proper adjudication of the matter. Mr. M.S.Singhvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that the document, as such was not admissible in terms of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act and since the two courts have recorded the concurrent findings, the same would not be interfered with in intra court appeal in view of judgment of the Apex Court in Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2003) 3 SCC, 524. In view of the findings recorded by the court below and also by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in our view, we need not reappreciate the facts urged before us. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere . This appeal accordingly is dismissed. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (NARAYAN ROY) CJ. Aditya/-