1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.135/2008 Madhu Singh. vs. Prem Singh and anr. Date : 10.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.J Gehlot, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance is that the trial court committed error of law by allowing secondary evidence of cheque in question. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the document produced by the respondent does not satisfy the conditions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act and does not fall within a document which can be treated and admitted as secondary evidence. Undisputedly, the cheque in question and the transaction through it is an admitted position, however, the contention of both the parties with respect to the reason of cheque may be different. The trial court observed that since the cheque is admitted document, therefore, allowed the marking 2 of said document as exhibit in evidence. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order even when the cheque in question does not fall in the category of document because of the reason of undisputed facts that the cheque is admitted and even the petitioner is relying upon the said cheque for his own purpose. Article 227 of Constitution of India is not meant for correction of error of law which may not result into prejudice to the party and the writ petitions cannot be admitted or entertained only on the ground of illegality of order when there is no prejudice to any party. Consequently, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya