Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The challenge in this petition at the instance of the original defendant Nos. 1 to 6 is to the order dated 19-7-2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao, whereby, application dated 29-8-2013 in Special Civil Suit No. 102/2001/A filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the original plaintiffs, for production of the document (D-20) has been allowed and the same is directed to be “treated as a secondary evidence”. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are original defendant Nos. 7 to 9 before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus : That the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that the final judgment/order dated 15-3-2000 passed in inventory proceedings No. 72/1998 approving the partition, be declared as null and void and for injunction, etc. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are also seeking a declaration that the second document carrying the oval seal on its front part at Exhibit 82 allegedly made by Ms. Radha Ti