- (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 65 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 possession. As original rent note was said to be in the possession of the defendants, it was prayed that the plaintiffs may be permitted to lead secondary evidence in respect of it. This application was moved on December 13, 1977. The defendants contested it by filing a reply to it on January 20, 1978.
(3.) Subsequently, on March 17, 1978, the plaintiffs subsmited another application purporting to be under Section 65 and 66 of the Act praying therein that the defendants may be directed to produce in Court the rent note dated Asoj Sudi 11, Samvat 2031. On the same day, another application under Order 11, Rule 14 C.P.C. was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff with a prayer that the defendants may be directed to produce the aforementioned rent note in Court. Notice under Order 12, 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 defendant 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 on 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 11, rule 14 C.P.C. by filing a written reply dated April 20, 1978.;