Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs: "(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure-8) may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 may kindly be dismissed in the Civil Original Suit No.68/2016 (Kuldeep Kour and Anr. Vs. Jai Ram & Anr) pending in the court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, District Sriganganagar; (iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems appropriate and genuine may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners; (iv) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners;"
(2.) Precisely the facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 and 3 filed a suit for specific performance for an agreement dated 25.03.2006 regarding the agricultural land measuring 11 bighas and 17 biswas in Murabba No.54 in Village 2 C Chhoti, Tehsil and District Sriganganagar. The father of the petitioners was said to be the sole owner of the disputed land. The petitioners have preferred this petition challenging the impugned order whereby, the application filed under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC for production of agreement dated 09.10.2006 from the possession of the petitioners which was dismissed by the learned court below but the respondents were permitted to file a photostat copy of the sale agreement dated 09.10.2006 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1972).
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown from the record that a notice was given by the respondents on 10.10.2006 and therefore, as per the petitioner, if there was such an agreement then agreement dated 09.10.2006 should have found mention in the notice dated 10.10.2006.;