JUDGMENT 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 submitted 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. 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. 4. 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. 5. Being aggrieved by this order, the defendants have come up in revision as aforesaid. 6. In pursuance of the notice to show cause as to why the revision be not admitted, Mr. G.R. Singhavi for Mr. J.L. Saraf, learned counsel for the plaintiffs non petitioners appeared. 7. I have heard Mr. H.M. Parakh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.R. Singhvi, learned counsel for the non petitioners. It was argued by G.R. Singhvi that no interference can be made with the order under revision under Section 115, C.P.C. Section 115 provides that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made in the course of the suit or other, proceedings, except where the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. According to the learned counsel for the non-petitioners, the conditions that the order under revision had occasioned a failure of justice or it would cause irreparable injury to the defendants against whom the order was made are not satisfied. he further submitted that even if the order under revision is erroneous, the consequence of the order is that the plaintiffs would lead secondary evidence in regard to the existence, condition or contents of the rent note dated Asoj Sudi 11, Samvat 2031. As such evidence to the learned Counsel for the defendants-Petitioners, is inadmissible, it can be made a ground of appeal as and when it is lodged and, therefore, neither of the conditions, namely failure of justice or irreparable injury is satisfied. As such evidence to the learned Counsel for the defendants-Petitioners, is inadmissible, it can be made a ground of appeal as and when it is lodged and, therefore, neither of the conditions, namely failure of justice or irreparable injury is satisfied. In addition to this, on the basis of the decision in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Kalawati, 1977 RLW 87, he contended that the order permitting secondary evidence in regard to the existence, condition or contents of the rent note is not revisable. Mr. Parakh, learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand, invited my attention to Sital Das v. Sant Ram and others : AIR 1954 Supreme Court 606, wherein held that foundation must be first laid for the reception of the secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Act and according to him since no such foundation for its reception has been laid, the learned District Judge exercised his jurisdiction illegally or at any rate with material irregularity in permitting the plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence in respect of the rent note. 8. I have carefully gone through the order under revision and, am satisfied that after considering the provisions of Section 65(a) of the Act, learned District Judge rightly permitted the plaintiffs to produce the secondary evidence in respect of the rent note as at that time objections regarding insufficiency of stamp and want of registration was not raised before him. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporations case, non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 9 moved and application praying therein that they may be permitted to produce secondary evidence in regard to the existence and conditions of the articles which were seized by the police. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge, Pali) allowed the application. Against that order, the revision was filed. While dismissing the revision, on the ground that a claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not a Civil subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure , the learned Judge made the following observations in para 7 : "Even otherwise I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not fall within the ambit of the Clauses of Section 115 CPC." The impugned order, in that case, was the permission to produce secondary evidence in regard to the existence and conditions of the articles. The learned counsel for petitioner could not satisfy me that the learned District Judge has committed any illegality or material irregularity in passing the order under revision on the ground that the case of the plaintiffs, for leading secondary evidence was covered by Section 65(a) of the Act. I am also not satisfied that the order under revision has occasioned any failure of justice or that it would cause irreparable injury to the defendants even if it is allowed to stand. 9. In these circumstances, no case of interference with the order under revision is make out. 10. It was next contended by Mr. Parakh that the rent note, in respect of which secondary evidence was permitted by the learned District Judge is insufficiently stamped and unregistered. According to him, it is inadmissible in evidence and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to lead secondary evidence about its existence, conditions or contents. I may state at once that the objections regarding insufficiency of stamp and want of registration were not taken before the learned District Judge at the time of disposal of the application for permission to lead secondary evidence. On July 28, 1978 an application was moved on behalf of the defendants that the rent note in dispute being insufficiently stamped and unregistered is inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, secondary evidence in respect of it, should not be recorded. This application has not been disposed of by the learned District Judge as yet. On July 29, 1978, the learned District Judge ordered that the copy of the application dated July 28, 1978 be supplied to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the case was posted for reply and arguments on August 3, 1978. 11. It is therefore, clear that the applications of defendants dated July 28, 1978 containing the objection that secondary evidence in respect of the rent note, should not be permitted as the rent note is insufficiently stamped and unregistered, is still pending before the trial Court. It is hoped that the learned District Judge will dispose of this application of the defendants in accordance with law. It is hoped that the learned District Judge will dispose of this application of the defendants in accordance with law. It is however, made clear that this order and the observations made herein above should not preclude him from re-examining the matter relating to the granting of permission in regard to the secondary evidence in the light of the objections incorporated in the defendants application dated July 28, 1978. 12. As no case for interference is made out in this revision-application, it is rejected summarily without any order as to costs. *******