JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - The petitioner has laid challenge to an order dated 21.01.2017 whereby his application dated 02.09.2016 filed under Order 8, Rule 1 A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the Trial Court, while observating as under :-

2. Mr. Rakesh Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner narrating the facts of the case stated that a categoric reference of the agreement to sell dated 15.12.2009 duly notarised on 21.12.2009 was very much made by the petitioner, while furnishing list of documents and in the written statement. He submitted that the learned Trial Court has rejected petitioner''s application cursorily holding interalia that the same is only a photocopy, which is not admissible in evidence.

3. Mr. Arora contended that while taking the document on record, the Court is not required to see its admissibility may it be on the ground of the documents being photocopy or for want of registration or payment of proper stamp duty.

4. Mr. Nahar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Trial Court has rejected petitioner''s application apparently for a reason that the document in question is not original, nevertheless the same is not