The court's decision was influenced by the requirement that the documents mentioned in the application for production of secondary evidence must find mention in the application moved under Section 65, Evidence Act.

Milap Chandra, J.-This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur dated August 29, 1981 by which he has rejected the defendant-petitioners’ application moved under Section 65, Evidence Act for the production of secondary evidence in respect of certain documents. By this order, the learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur also dismissed the defendant-petitioners’ application moved under Order 13, Rule 10. C.P.C.

2. Learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioners contends that the learned trial Court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the application seeking permission for producing secondary evidence.

3. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioners duly supports the order under challenge.

4. Learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioners was repeatedly requested to either show the application moved under Section 65, Evidence Act or to point out either in the revision petition or in the impugned order the documents in respect of which of production of secondary evidence was sought. He is unable to do so. From the impugned order, it appears that the secondary evidence was sought to be produced in respect of certain documents whose production was not granted under Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C. The trial Court has categorically observed that the documents mentioned in the application moved under Order 11, Rule 14,

C.P.C. donot find mention in the application moved under Section 65, Evidence Act. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial Court has acted with material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the defendant-petitioners’ application for permission to produce secondary evidence. As such the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Thisrevision petition was filed in the year 1981. The delay occurred on account of the non-service of the notices upon the non-petitioners as the petitioners failed to take steps for a pretty long time. The proceedings of the suit were stayed in compliance with the order of this Court dated October 23, 1981 passed on the stay application of the petitioners. If the petitioners had taken steps in time, this delay would not have occurred. As a matter of fact on account of the stay order they were interested in delaying the disposal of this revision petition as far as possible. The revision petition is also vexatious and as such it deserves to be dismissed with compensatory cost.

6. The revision petition is dismissed with special cost to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-.