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 w