Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) ADMIT .
(2.) SHRI R.K. Agarwal, Advocate, appears for the respondents No. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1 is only a formal party, therefore, its service is dispensed with. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition, on behalf of the applicant -petitioner, is directed against the impugned order dated 2nd April, 2008, passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sikar, whereby the application filed on behalf of the applicant under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC has been rejected and the application filed on behalf of the non -applicant/respondents under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to admit Exhibit -A -11 in secondary evidence has been allowed.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the disputed document i.e. stamp dated 13.09.1984 is a forged document and the trial court committed an illegality in allowing the said document to be taken on the record and in granting permission for adducing secondary evidence in this regard, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set -aside by this Court. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the document, in question, is a Photostat copy of the original and, so far as allegation of the petitioner that this document is forged one, an enquiry in this regard can be made at proper stage.;