1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3146/2008 {Murti Shri Chandraprabhu Ji Shri Digamber Jain Mandir & Others Versus Ghasi Lal & Others} Date of Order :: 19th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. M.C. Jain for the petitioners Mr. S.N. Gupta for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Gupta appears for the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff-petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 28th February, 2008 (Annexure-5), whereby their application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and under Section 65-66 of the Indian Evidence Act dated 1st February, 2008 has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the defendants themselves wanted to produce the document dated 22nd November, 1948 on record, which is clear from the impugned order, but later-on they withdrew their application. He further contended that no reply to application was filed by the defendants in the trial court and 2 their only objection was about the cost which is clear from the impugned order, therefore, their application may be allowed and document may be taken on record. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also the impugned order passed by the trial court. From the order itself, it is clear that the document dated 22nd November, 1948 was earlier placed on record alongwith the application filed by the defendants, but later-on they withdrew their application. The original document was not in possession of the plaintiffs, therefore, a photostat copy thereof has been placed on record. In normal course, the original document could not have been in possession of the plaintiffs, therefore, they have sought a permission from the court under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to place on record its secondary evidence. 6. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that document in dispute appears to be relevant and material for proper adjudication 3 of the case, therefore, their application is liable to be allowed. 7. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28th February, 2008 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The application dated 1st February, 2008 filed by the plaintiff-petitioners is allowed. The document annexed with the application may be taken on record. 8. Cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK