- (1.) The petitioner-plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 1.8.2013 and the order dated 30.5.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Jaipur District, Jaipur. By the former order, the learned Magistrate had accepted an application filed by the respondent-defendants under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for producing secondary evidence with regard to Patta issued in the year 1981. By the latter order, the learned Magistrate had rejected an application filed by the petitioner under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendants stating therein that the petitioner No.2 and 3, namely Smt. Rukmani Devi and Kamlesh Jangir, purchased the plot No. 85-86, situated at Pratap Nagar, Nai Ki Thadi, Ramgarh Road, Jaipur, in the year 1981 from Madhav Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti. The petitioner No.1, Radheyshyam Jangir, purchased the said plot from the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 for a consideration of Rs. 1,80,000/- and the patta was transferred to his name. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents are trying to dispossess them from the said plot. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed. The respondents filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. The learned trial court framed the issues and the evidence was led by the petitioner. The respondents filed an application for producing secondary evidence. By order dated 1.8.2013, the learned trial court allowed the said application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC. By order dated 30.5.2014, the learned trial court dismissed the application under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has challenged the order dated 1.8.2013 ostensibly on the ground that the requirement of Section 65 of the Evidence Act were not fulfilled. Therefore, permission under Section 65 of the Evidence Act could not have been given. He has further challenged the order dated 30.5.2014 ostensibly on the ground that the photostat copies of the Patta were inadmissible. Therefore, the application under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC should have been allowed.;