1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge, Gangapurcity, whereby the learned Judge has permitted an electronic recording and a transcript to be marked as an exhibit.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,28,200/- against the defendant-petitioners. It was alleged in the suit that plaintiff-respondents were in possession of Rs. 4,70,000/- in cash which belonged to their H.U.F. On 20.8.2003, due to some urgent reasons they had to leave for Jaipur. Therefore, they approached the defendant-petitioners, their neighbours, with whom they had cordial relations. The plaintiff-respondents requested the petitioners to keep the cash in safe custody. But on returning back, when the plaintiff-respondents asked the defendant-petitioners to return their money back, the defendant-petitioners refused to return it. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for recovery. During the trial, the plaintiff-respondents submitted a electronic voice recording, and a transcript of the recording. They requested the trial court to mark them as exhi