(1.) This revision has been preferred against the order dated 10-3-1997 accepting the application under O. 13, R.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") filed by the plaintiff/nonpetitioner.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that plaintiff/non-petitioner filed a suit for declaration of ownership of the suit property and permanent injunction restraining the petitioner- defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff/non-petitioner. The suit was contested by the petitioner-defendants on various grounds. There had been criminal proceedings also as an F.I.R. had been lodged in respect of the same dispute and the property had also been attached under the provisions of S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At a belated stage, on 22-1-1994; plaintiff/non-petitioner filed an application under O. 13, R. 2 of the Code on the ground that the original document has been lost during the miscellaneous proceedings in the Court itself, therefore, he may be permitted to adduce secondary evidence and in view thereof, the document was filed and the same has been taken on record. Hence this revision.
(3.) Mr. R. P. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants has submitted that the secondary evidence produced by the plaintiff/non-petitioner is a forged document as it is not an exact photostat copy of the original and the same could not have been accepted. Moreso, even while accepting the document, the Court below has committed an error in holding that the document was admissible, hence the order is liable to be set aside.