Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for th petitioner.
(2.) THE above referred five writ petitions arise out of similar order in between same parties, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there were five agreements executed in between the parties in respect of disputed land which were divided in five parts. The petitioner Murari Lal filed two separate suits, whereas his wife Sushila Devi filed third suit. Two suits were filed by respondent No. 2 -Vijay Solvex Limited. All these suits were filed for specific performance of the agreement. All the five suits are going -on in the same court on the same day simultaneously, as contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner. During the pendency of all these five suits, the petitioner Murari Lal and Smt. Sushila Devi filed five separate applications as plaintiff in their own suit and as defendant in the suit filed by respondent No. 2 under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC in respect of alleged Tehreer -Annexure -3 in writ petition No. 7558/2008, alleged to have been executed in between respondent No. 2 - Vijay Solvex Ltd. and Jaipur Glass and Potteries Works Limited, Jaipur. The application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC was dismissed by the trial court in all the five cases. The said order was not challenged by the plaintiff -petitioner, as admitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner Murari Lal and Smt. Sushila Devi in their respective suits as plaintiff and in remaining two suits filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 -Vijay Solves Limited, filed five separate applications under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to allow them to lead secondary evidence in respect of so -called Tehreer -Annexure -3 in writ petition No. 7588/2008, alleged to have been executed in between Jaipur Glass and Potteries Works Limited and respondent No. 2 -Vijay Solves Limited. The trial court rejected all the five applications in all the five suits by similar but separate order in each case on 21st May, 2008, which is subject matter of the present writ petitions.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court has committed an illegality in rejecting their application on the ground that a notice required under Section 66 of the Evidence Act has not been served on the opposite party, whereas the said notice was not required to be served as his case was falling under Clause (2) of proviso to Section 66 of the Act.;