S.K.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's revision, filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jalore, dated July 12, 1978, by which he granted permission to the plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence in respect of a rent note dated Asoj Sudi 11, Samvat 2031.
(2.) THE plaintiffs submitted an application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act (for short 'the Act') stating that the original rent note dated Asoj Sudi 11 Samvat 2031 (26 -10 -74) is in possession of the defendants, and in the written statement, they have denied that it is in their possesion. As the original rent note was said to be in the possession of the defendants, it was prated that the plaintiffs may be permitted to lead secondary evidence in respect of it. This application was moved on December 13, 1977. The defer cant 8 contested it by filing a re ply to it on January 20, 1978. Subsequently, oh March 17,1978, the plaintiffs submitted another application purporting to be under Section 65 and 66 of the Act praying therein that the defendants may be directed in produce in court the rent note dated Asoj Sudi 11, Samvat 2031. On the same day, another application under Order XI, Rule 14 C.P.C. was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs with a prayer that the defendants may be directed to produce the aforementioned rent note in court. Notice under Order XII, Rule 8 C.P.C. was given by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs to the learned Counsel for the defendants for the production of the aforesaid original rent note, This notice was given on March 17,1978. An affidavit dated March 24, 1978 of the plaintiff Bhanwarlal, was submitted in the trial court on March 28, 1978. In that affidavit, it was, inter alia, mentioned that the original rent note is in possession and power of the defeidant Sawal Chand. The application purporting to be under Section 65 and 66 of the Act Was also opposed by the defendants vide their reply dated April 20, 1978 An affidavit of Sawal Chand was also filed in the trial court en April 20, 1978 stating amongst others that no rent note dated Asoj Sudi 11, Samvat 2031 was executed by him and that the alleged rent note is not in his possession or power. The defendants also opposed the plaintiff's application under Order XI, Rule 14 C.P.C. by filing a written reply dated April 20, 1978.
(3.) THE learned Civil Judge, by his order dated July 12, 1978, accepted the plaintiff's applications and accorded permission to the plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence regarding the rent note dated Asoj Sudi 11, Samvat 2031, as the case was covered by Section 65(a) of the Act.;