Arun Kumar Jha, J.—The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.06.2019 passed by learned Munsif 1st, Chapra in Title Suit No. 03/2016 whereby and whereunder the petition dated 03.06.2019 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for marking as exhibit photocopy of the attested true copy of Taksimnama (Memorandum of Partition) dated 29.09.1984, stated to be the true copy of its original dated 12.03.1974, has been rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed Title Suit No. 03 of 2016 for declaration of deed of Bainama dated 01.12.2009 executed by respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no.1 as void and sham document and also for declaration of his title and confirmation of his possession over the suit land. The plaintiff/petitioner claims to have purchased the land in question from the respondent no.3 through a registered sale deed dated 26.09.2015 and came in possession over the land in question. He also made some structure over the suit land. However, the respondent no. 1 threatened the tenants of the petitioner that they should pay rent to the respondent no.1 as he had got the registered deed of Bainama dated 01.12.2009 from the respondent no.2 and he was having right, right over the suit land. The plaintiff/petitioner made inquiry into the matter and filed the suit on the ground that land in question came into possession of respondent no. 3 on the basis of deed of Taksimnama dated 11.03.1974 which is registered document of Memorandum of Partition among cosharers of the father of the respondent no. 3 and part land in question was also acquired by the respondent no. 3 on the basis of registered deed of Bainama from one Tilak Manjhi. Thus, the plaintiff/ petitioner claim that the respondent no. 2 has no right to execute any deed of Bainama in favour of respondent no.1. Notices were issued to the defendants/respondents, but they did not appear in the suit and, as such, the suit proceeded ex-parte against the defendants. The plaintiff/petitioner examined eight witnesses from his side. Since original copy of Taksimnama dated 12.03.1974 has been misplaced by the respondent no.3, but photocopy of true attested copy of Taksimnama dated 29.09.1984 has been provided to the petitioner by the respondent no. 3 in support of his claim over the suit land, the plaintiff/petitioner filed a petition dated 03.06.2019 to get the photocopy of true attested copy of Taksimnama dated 12.03.1974 to be marked as exhibit. However, the learned trial court rejected the aforesaid petition vide order dated 26.06.2019 and the said order has been challenged before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned trial court completely overlooking the provisions of secondary evidence under Section 63 (2) of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and hence, the impugned order is not sustainable. The learned trial court also overlooked the fact that the petitioner has already examined two witnesses to prove the said document as they stated that photocopy of the said document was made in their presence which fulfills the requirement of Section 63 (2) of the Act for taking secondary evidence as copies made from original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies are to be taken as secondary evidence. The learned trial court has also not considered the fact that the vendor of the petitioner has specifically stated on oath that original deed of Taksimnama has been misplaced but he has handed over the petitioner one photocopy of the true attested copy of Taksimnama dated 29.09.1984 in support of his claim and marking of such document as exhibit is permissible under the Act as secondary evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court committed jurisdictio