J U D G M E N T

Amit Rawal J.

The present petition is directed against the order dated 28/11/2023, whereby, the trial court-family court during the evidence of the respondents had accepted the documents, that is, a pen drive with the certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act, provisionally, subject to further proof regarding the contents. Another document is also marked.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the certificate and pen drive are not with regard to original voice but copy thereof, therefore, they could have been marked instead of exhibited. The expression in the impugned order with regard to the acceptance of the documents do not clarify as to whether they have been actually exhibited or marked.

3. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book.

4. The impugned order reads as under:

“Both sides represented. Petition to accept documents allowed.

Pendrive with certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act is provisionally admitted subject to further proof regarding its contents as Ext.B3. Another document is marked as Ext.B4.

Commissioner is directed to proceed with examination of R2 and file report within 8.12.2023.”

5. Our att