JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appeal is at the instance of the original plaintiff. During his examination, he intended to tender two documents namely; the copy of mortgage deed dated 3rd March, 1955 and the copy of Will dated 23rd November, 1977, in evidence which was objected to by the defendants. Then application under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act was made by the plaintiff for permission to prove the aforesaid two documents by secondary evidence. 2. The application, after contest, has been rejected by the trial court by his order dated 1st April, 2006. The plaintiff challenged the said order by filing writ petition which came to be dismissed by the order dated 19th January, 2007. Hence the present appeal. 3. In the application made by the plaintiff under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, he averred that the original mortgage deed dated 3rd March, 1955 was not in possession of the plaintiff and it must have been with Sua Lai, the father of the original defendant Uchhav Lai. As regards the Will dated 23rd November, 1977, it was submitted that since the said Will was in favour of the Uchhav Lai, it must have been with him during his life time and after his death with his legal representatives. 4. In response to the application under Section 65 Evidence Act, the defendants stated that insofar as the mortgage deed dated 3rd March, 1955 was concerned, it was executed in favour of one Sahu Samaj (Tell) and since the primary evidence is available, there is no justification for secondary evidence. With regard to the Will dated 23rd November, 1977, the legal heirs of original defendant submitted that they would search for the said document and, if fourid, it would be produced before the court. 5. The counsel for the appellant submitted that both the documents are registered documents and, therefore, the trial court ought to have granted permission to the plaintiff to prove these documents by secondary evidence. In this connection, he relied upon the two judgments namely : (1) Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Karri Chinna Venkata Reddy and Others, AIR 1994 SC 591 and (2) Shedu & Others v. Birdha & Another, 2002(4) RLW 2010 . 6. We perused the judgments cited by the counsel for the appellant and also considered the order of the trial judge. 7. 6. We perused the judgments cited by the counsel for the appellant and also considered the order of the trial judge. 7. The trial court observed that plaintiff took no steps in summoning the two documents from the parties having possession thereof. The approach of the trial court in consideration of the matter under Section 65 cannot be said to suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law. Merely because the documents are alleged to be registered documents, it did not mean that no steps were required to be made by the appellant in getting these documents summoned from the parties having possession thereof. 8. Be that as it may, the discretion having been properly exercised by the trial court in consideration of the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, the dismissal of writ petition by the Single Judge cannot be faulted. 9. Special appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. 10. Needless to say the dismissal of application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall not preclude the plaintiff in now taking steps in summoning the original documents from the parties having possession thereof.Appeal dismissed - Petitioner free to take steps for summoning documents. *******