Judgment : Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard finally by consent. 2. This Petition is arising out of interlocutory order passed in suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 3. The defendants' witness wasin cross examination. The plaintiff has confronted a document which is purported to be a certified copy of a Sale Deed executed by defendants. 4. This document so confronted has been admitted by DW.1 when confronted. 5. Defendants claim that they have realized that the document which the Dw.1 was confronted does not correctly depict the plan annexed thereto. 6. The defendants, therefore, filed application seeking permission to tender a notarized copy of the Sale Deed with leave to tender the original in due course which, according to the defendants, is the correct documents. 7. Said application has been rejected by Order dated 18.07.2009, which Order is challenged in this Petition. 8. Suit in question is a summary suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Sole issue in such suit is whether plaintiff was dispossessed within 6 months prior to the date of suit otherwise than in the course of law. In the trial, the title is not an issue. 9. Even it is not the case of defendants that made out at the time of tendering the copy and original subject matter that there exists a dispute about the identify of the property and for this purpose production of this document is necessary. 10. Nothing precludes the defendants from showing from the said admitted document that there are certain discrepancies in document which was produced on confronting it to the defendants' witness, and call in question its worth. 11. On the grounds as emerging from paras 8 and 9 foregoing, no interference is called for. 12. Rule is discharged. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.