AMARJEET SINGH Vs. MANGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY the impugned order dated 23.11.2010, the learned trial court has allowed the plaintiffs-respondents' application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act allowing them to lead secondary evidence in a suit for specific performance filed by them.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of reasons given in the impugned order dated 23.11.2010, this Court is satisfied that the order impugned does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The production of secondary evidence specially in the background of Annex.8 order dated 25.10.2010 appears to be justified and secondly the defendants are still free to raise their objections during the course of final hearing of the suit itself. The scope writ jurisdiction enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very narrow and limited in view of recent Supreme Court decision delivered in the case of Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6387, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -