Prakash Tatia, J.-The present writ petition is against the order of the trial Court dated 15.09.2005 by which the trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiff -respondent under Section 65 of the Evidence Act and permitted the plaintiff to produce the copy of the family settlement dated 16.08.2003 as secondary evidence.

2. According to the learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed serious error of law in allowing the application of the plaintiff-respondent and allowed the documents to be taken on record as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The trial Court without deciding about the execution of the document, its existence and correctness of the copy produced by the respondent as secondary evidence, allowed the document to be admitted in evidence, which is contrary to the provision of Section 63 of the Evidence Act. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in view of the order dated 15.09.2005, the petitioner will be precluded from submitting that there was no original family settlement in existence because the order under Section 65 of the Evidence Act can be passed after holding that origi