ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, prayed that by appropriate writ, order or direction, order dated 14.11.2022 (Annexure-4) passed by Learned Trial Court may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act filed by respondent/plaintiff may kindly be dismissed.

Any other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession of property and permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants, before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara.

2.1. In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 before Additional District Judge, Bhilwara.

2.1.1. It was stated in the application that the disputed property was purchased by the respondent/plaintiff from one Shri Roshan Lal Sanadhya S/o Late Shri Prabhu Lal Sanadhya on 04.06.2019, for which the said Roshan Lal executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

2.1.2. It was further stated in the application that half portion of the property was bequeathed in favour of Roshan Lal by his father vide registered Will dated 24.07.1985. Since Shri Roshan Lal had expired on 31.12.2020, the original Will could not be obtained and produced, and therefore, it was prayed in the application that the certified copy of the Will may be taken in evidence as secondary evidence.

2.1.3. It was also stated in the application that remaining half portion of the property was purchased by Late Shri Roshan Lal from one Smt. Maniben, for which registered sale deed was executed; however, on count of demise of Shri Roshan Lal, the original sale deed could not be obtained and produced, and therefore, it was prayed in the application that the certified copy of the said sale deed may be taken in evidence as secondary evidence.

2.1.4. It was further stated in the application that pertaining to the dispute property in question, a case bearing No. 94/2020 titled as Manohar Lal vs. Kalulal and Others is pending consideration before the learned District Court, Bhilwara; in the said case, Manohar Lal (petitioner/defendant) has mentioned about the undisputed fact of demise of Roshan Lal on 31.12.2020.

2.1.5. In favour of one Madan Lal and Shyam Lal, who were brothers of the petitioner/defendant (Manohar Lal), Smt. Maniben had executed a sale deed pertaining to the disputed property. Since the brothers (Madan Lal and Shyam Lal) had also expired, therefore, the original sale deed could not be obtained and produced, and therefore, in the application, it was prayed that the certified copy of the said sale deed may be taken in evidence as secondary evidence.

2.1.6. It was also mentioned in the application by the respondent/plaintiff that taking the aforementioned certified copies of the documents as secondary evidence was necessary for the effective and fair adjudication of the suit in question.

2.2. The learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 14.11.2022 allowed the aforesaid application, while taking the aforementioned documents in evidence as secondary evidence.

2.3. Thus, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.11.2022 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhilwara, the petitioners/defendants have preferred this writ petition claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that as per the respondent/plaintiff himself, the originals of the documents in question were not in his possession on count of the reasons, as mentioned in the application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act; but since the respondent/plaintiff clearly failed to show as to what steps were taken by him to obtain the originals of the documents in qu