Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) IT appears from the impugned order dt. 26.04.2007 that the trial Court was of the view that whether the original of the document dt. 28.10.1994 was in existence or not is doubtful. In that situation, the trial Court should have given opportunity to both the parties to prove the fact of existence of the compromise dt. 28.10.1994 before deciding the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act because of the reason that the copy of the original can be admitted in evidence under Section 65 and that presupposes and makes it a condition precedent that there was an original document which cannot be produced in the Court, then only permission can be granted for production of the said document in evidence. Rejection of the application at this stage without giving opportunity to prove the existence of the document was not proper. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dt. 26.04.2007 is set aside and it is directed that the trial Court may now give reasonable opportunity and may decide the issue whether the original compromise dt. 28.10.1994, copy of which was produced in the Court by the petitioner, was in existence or not and thereafter, decide the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.;