- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY the impugned orders Annex.1 dated 21.02.2006 and Annex.2 dated 09.03.2006, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nathdwara, Rajsamand, in a suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has dismissed the application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC and application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act refusing to take on record photocopies of certain documents in relation to society formed by the petitioners' father. Mr. Kaushal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Prakash Kumar Balochi Vs. Nrapendra Prakash Sharma & Ors. reported in 2008 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 228 and in the case of Rajesh Kumar Bhati Vs. Additional District Judge (F.T.) No.3, Jodhpur & Ors. reported in 2009 (2) CDR 1037 (Raj.), submitted that since the original documents were in possession of the defendants/respondents, therefore, the photocopies thereof ought to have been allowed as secondary evidence. He, therefore, argued that the learned court below has erred in not treating the documents produced by the plaintiff as secondary evidence.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents opposed these submissions and submitted that in view of narrow scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the orders impugned do not require any interference by this Court and the learned court below was perfectly justified in refusing to take on record the photocopies of the documents produced by the petitioner/plaintiff.;