Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition has been preferred against the order of the trial Court by which to the trial Court refused to admit, rather say, ordered to take out of the record the certified copy of the sale deed Ex. 4 as well as the order passed by the UIT, Bikaner Ex. 7.

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the trial Court committed error of law by ordering deletion of exhibit marked as Exs. 4 and 7. It is submitted that original sale deed Ex. 4 is lying in another suiting which is pending in the same court having No. 14/1998 and, therefore, he could have exhibited the Photostat copy of the original sale deed. It is submitted that the copy of the order passed by the VIT, Bikaner (Exs.7) was filed during evidence of the plaintiff and he produced the certified copy of the order passed by the VIT, Bikaner and that could have been done because the copy has already been filed by the plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that only original documents could have been exhibited, but the original document, which is admittedly in existence has not been produced, therefore, the trial Court was right in ordering removal of the