IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 419 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.11.2010 Sneh Lata and another …Petitioners. Versus Om Prakash …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioner (here- in-after referred to as the defendant) is aggrieved by the order dated 23rd October, 2010 whereby the respondent-plaintiff has been permitted to place on record certain additional documents. 2. Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in fact he is not aggrieved by the order in so far as it allows the production of the documents but his apprehension is that the Court shall admit the documents in evidence without proof in view of the averments made in para 4 of the application as well as in the prayer clause that the documents are perse admissible in evidence. He 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 submits that since the application has been allowed he apprehends that these documents may be exhibited and read in evidence as being perse admissible. 3. In my view this apprehension is misplaced since the trial Court has not held that these documents are perse admissible and even otherwise I find that some of the documents which were sought to be produced i.e. certified copy of Superdari list, receipt, site plan, etc. are not perse admissible. The production of the documents has been allowed and the learned trial Court shall ensure that only those documents are read in evidence which are proved in accordance with law. With this clarification the petition is disposed of. Dasti copy. 25th November, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge