J.P. Jain, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal and it arises in the following circumstances:
(2.) PLAINTIFF Smt. Mohani Bai obtained a decree against one Aildas for ejectment from the house hearing No. AMC. 6/428 Old & 7/414 New on the ground of personal necessity . Appeal by Alidas failed. His second appeal in the High Court was also dismissed on 7 -5 -68. During the pendency of the appeals the execution was stayed at the instance of Aildas. In execution Mohini Bai obtained an order of forcible dispossession on 8.5.68 Kishan Chand respondent, who is the nephew of Aildas, resisted the execution of the recovery of possession and maintained that be was the tenant of Mohini Bai as she has admitted him as the tenant on and from 7.5.68. The matter had gone upto the High Court and as a result of the litigation Smt. Mohini Bai have to file a fresh suit for recovery of possession of the suit property, on the basis of title. The Civil Suit was registered as 124/1970. Kishan Chand in his written statement inter alia alleged that he was admitted as a tenant vide a lease deed dated 7.5.68. Mohini Bai was Called upon to produce the lease deed. She refused to have one and therefore could not produce the alleged document evidencing the tenancy of Kishan Chand . A copy of the said document was filed in execution case No. 38/67, A certified copy of this document was placed on record of the suit. The learned trial Judge held that document to be inadmissible, and after trial of the case decreed the plaintiff's suit by his order dated 29.7.72. The order was challenged in appeal by Kishan Chand. The learned Additional District Judge, Ajmer dealt with this appeal. The only point that was argued before on behalf of Kishan Chand related to issue No. 2. Issue No. 2 reads as follows: Has the plaintiff accepted the defendant as a tenant in respect of the suit property at the rate of Rs. 30/ - per month on 7.5.68 as alleged by the defendant,?
(3.) IT was argued on behalf of Kishan Chand that he wanted to produce a carbon copy of the lease deed executed by the plaintiff Mohini Bai and the defendant Kishan Chand but the trial Court did not permit him to do so. The trial Court was wrong in disallowing the production of the document in holding that it was insufficiently stamped and not registered. The learned Judge in appeal, in the first instance, held that the carbon copy of the lease deed, which was sought to be produced by the defendant Kishan Chand, was not a secondary evidence but primary evidence. He was also of the opinion that it was a counter part of the main document and each document was an original. He held that the order of the learned trial Judge in not allowing the the defendant to produce the document was erroneous, He accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanded the case hack for a fresh decision after accepting the document on record. It is this order which has been challenged by Smt. Mohini under Order 41 Rule 1 Clause (u), Civil P.C.;