SBCWP No.5355/2008 Abdul Rashid & Anr. Vs. Safi Mohd. 1 SBCWP No.5355/2008 Abdul Rashid & Anr. Vs. Safi Mohd. DATE OF ORDER : - 23.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Sajjan Singh, for the petitioner. Mr.Suresh Shrimali, for the respondent. <><><> At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is heard on merits. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 11th July, 2008. By the order dated 11th July, 2009, with the consent of the parties, the copy of the sale deed Ex.2 was taken on record and because of that reason, the trial court did not summon the original document. There is no illegality in that order because that part of the order is obtained by both the parties with consent. The plaintiff submitted application for summoning the original document – agreements dated 9th June, 2007 and 12th June, 2007 and in alternate prayed that he may be permitted to produce the secondary evidence for the said agreements. For these agreements, defendants denied SBCWP No.5355/2008 Abdul Rashid & Anr. Vs. Safi Mohd. 2 their existence and plaintiff submitted that the documents are duly notarized and has been entered into register of notary public and name of notary public was given by the plaintiff. In that situation, the trial court allowed the second prayer of the plaintiff and admitted the copy of the agreements subject to further inquiry, which obviously included about even existence of the documents in question, which is pre-condition for admitting the doucments in evidence as secondary evidence. This Court held that the peace meal inquiry within inquiry can be dispensed with and the documents can be admitted in evidence and in main evidence itself this issue can be examined whether the original document was in existence or not and the document produced by the parties is true and correct copy of the original or not. Therefore, the trial court was justified in ordering that documents are admitted in evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act subject to any decision given after inquiry. So far as other documents, which were produced by the plaintiff along with the affidavit being Ex.6 to Ex.28 and Ex.30 are concerned, for that the trial court clearly SBCWP No.5355/2008 Abdul Rashid & Anr. Vs. Safi Mohd. 3 observed that there are allegations in the pleadings about the criminal case and proceedings taken thereunder, the trial court found that the documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the suit. In that view of the matter, the trial court has not committed any illegality in not putting Ex.6 to 28 and 30 out of record and also not committed any illegality in summoning the original documents, which were taken on record. Hence,there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-