This is the defendants second appeal against an appellate decree of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 11.8.54, upholding the decree of the trial court, whereby the respondents suit for recovery of possession over the land in dispute was decreed. 2. We have heard the parties and have examined the record as well. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellants before us is that a document which had a material bearing was wrongly shut out by the trial court and hence the trial courts order stands vitiated. This contention is bound to prevail. The respondents version was that the appellants dispossessed them wrongfully from the land in dispute. This claim was resisted by the appellants on the plea that a Panchayat was held wherein it was agreed that the land in dispute shall be given over in possession to the appellants & the possession to the appellants was transferred willingly in consequence of this decision of the Panchayat. A document alleged to have been written in the Panchayat was sought to be produced by the appellants before the trial court. Chhajuram D.W.I appears to have been summoned to produce this document and when the document was confronted to the witness, an objection was raised by the respondents counsel that it was inadmissible. The trial court upheld this objection and held the document inadmissible. The reason advanced by the trial court is that as the two documents alleged to have been executed in the Panchayat, one each being delivered to both the parties, the document produced by the appellants should be construed as a copy of the original for the production of which no steps were taken by the appellants. This is an entirely erroneous view of law. If the statement of Chhajuram witness is to be believed, it would be evident therefrom that two counter-parts of the document were executed and after the signatures of both the parties one was delivered to each of the parties. As laid down in Sec. 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, "where a document is executed in several parts each part is primary evidence of the document." An instrument is said to be executed in several parts when it is written out and executed by all the parties to the instrument as many times over as there are parties each party retaining one writing thus signed. The trial court was therefor, clearly in the wrong in rejecting this document. The first appellate court appears to have differed from the trial court on the point of admissibility of this document but was influenced by the consideration that the document even if admitted would not turn the scales in the case. This is evidently a conjecture and until the entire evidence is on record, no conclusions can be drawn as to its probative value. There, has thus been a clear illegality in the trial of the case. 3. It would have certainly been better if the trial court had so worded issue No. (1) as to show clearly the points at issue between the partis. The plea raised by the appellants regarding peaceful delivery of possession inconsequence of an arbitration by the Panchayat could have been included in issue No. (1). As the case is being remanded, it should be done now. 4. We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decrees of the lower courts and remand the case to the court of first instance with the direction that issue No. (1) be re-framed as directed above, the documents produced by the appellants be admitted and whatever evidence may be led by the parties for or against it, may be allowed and the case be decided afresh thereafter.