Prakash Tatia, J.—At the request of learned counsel for the parities, the matter is heard and decided finally. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner No.2 filed the suit for cancellation of adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988. According to plaintiff-non-petitioner No.2 the adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 is forged one and original deed is in possession of the defendant-petitioner. The defendant-petitioner does not want to produce the said original document to avoid his prosecution for fabricating false adoption deed. The defendant-petitioner when asked to produce the original document then he refused and he submitted an application for producing the certified copy of the adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 when two of the alleged attesting witnesses of adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 have already been produced by the plaintiff as his witness. The trial Court rejected the defendant-petitioner’s application for allowing petitioner to produce certified copy of the adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 on the ground original document must have been in possession of the defendant-petitioner himself and, therefore, the defendant-petitioner cannot be permitted to produce the certified copy of the adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner vehemently submitted that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner for cancellation of adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 and, therefore, the document dt. 02.02.1988 itself is the foundational document. The original document is not in power and possession of the petitioner-defendant and at the time of plaintiff’s evidence the defendant sought permission of the Court to produce the certified copy of the registered adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988. It is submitted that the trial Court has committed serious error of law by rejecting the said application when the suit is for cancellation of document dt. 02.02.1988 itself. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the alleged two attesting witnesses shown in the adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 have already been examined by the plaintiff and the defendant-petitioner deliberately did not want to produce the original document. 5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. The document i.e., adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 is a registered document and plaintiff herself has filed the suit for cancellation of this document then the document is relevant. The plaintiff herself said that the said document dt. 5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. The document i.e., adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 is a registered document and plaintiff herself has filed the suit for cancellation of this document then the document is relevant. The plaintiff herself said that the said document dt. 02.02.1988 is forged one then the existence of document is not in dispute because a document which is in existence alone can be forged and fabricated and a document which never has been executed for that no allegation of fabrication can be levelled. The plaintiff shall have full liberty to prove that original document was suppressed by the defendant deliberately to avoid any finding against him on the question of fabricating the document. The production of the document, in the peculiar facts of the case, plaintiff’s foundational document i.e., the adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 for which plaintiff alleged is a fabricated document and original has not been produced by any of the party then its copy should not have been refused by the Court below. The production of the document is necessary because of the reason that this document is a core issue whether the adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 is forged one or not. 7. Consequently, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed, the order of the trial Court dt. 01.09.1998 is set aside and since the matter is old one, therefore, the trial Court is requested to decide the suit expeditiously within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order by the Court. The copy of the order be sent to the trial Court forthwith. * * * * *