SB Civil Writ Petition N0.9560/08 Jinendra Kumar v. The State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & ors. 1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9560/08 Jinendra Kumar v. The State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & ors. Date of Order:- 21.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA Mr. Pankaj Kumar Bohra for the petitioner. Mr. Jagdish Vyas for the respondents. ... Heard learned counsel for the parties. The application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was rejected by the trial court by order dated 29.7.2008 whereby the petitioner sought to produce the Will dated 1.1.1990 which was alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff's grand-mother Vastu Bai. Then the petitioner submitted the review petition that the said order was not passed after hearing the counsel for the plaintiff. The plaintiff's review petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.9.2008. Hence this writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner even a plain copy of original document can be admitted in evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. In this case, the petitioner's application has been rejected by the trial court without hearing the counsel for the petitioner and, therefore, the order suffers from error of law and the principle of natural justice has been denied and further more, the trial SB Civil Writ Petition N0.9560/08 Jinendra Kumar v. The State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & ors. 2 court proceeded on wrong premises and wrongly rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the respondents who are the banks and the petitioner sought injunction against the respondents. In said suit, one application for injunction was also filed wherein according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the injunction is operative against the respondents. It is no doubt a copy of the document, if is produced and found to be true and correct copy of the original, then that can be admitted in evidence and further more, the court can rely upon the said evidence on proving the fact from the said evidence taken on record as secondary evidence. But here in this case, I do not find that any case is made out for interference by this Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner will be free to challenge the impugned order in appeal in case any occasion arises for doing so. Hence the writ petition is not entertained and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA)J mlt.