Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) ADMIT . Mr. Mehta appears for contesting plaintiff -respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is only a proforma respondent, therefore, its service is dispensed with.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The plaintiff -respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of amount alongwith interest against defendant -petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, when matter was fixed for evidence, the Counsel for the defendant petitioner made a prayer to mark exhibit on the certified copy of the certified copy of security bond as the original was not within the possession of the defendant -petitioner. The trial court rejected the prayer vide order dated 13th September, 2006, which is impugned in this writ petition preferred on behalf of defendant.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the defendant petitioner contended that the document in question was a certified copy which was obtained by him from another suit, wherein certified copy was exhibited, therefore, it was a certified copy of the certified copy of the document, which should have been taken on record and exhibited in the case. The said document was not in his possession and trial court has wrongly recorded a finding that the original is in existence. In support of his contention, he referred Arunkumar Pritmalal and Anr. v. : AIR1975Guj73 and Gurgan Lal v. Vijay Kumar and Ors., 2001 WLC (Raj.) UC 576.;