JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16. 4.2008 whereby the learned court below rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 7, Rule 14 C.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on earlier occasion, the learned trial court on 19.11 2005 had allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 16, Rule 6 C.P.C. and asked him to obtain the certified copy of the documents from the respondent department and in pursuance of the said direction when he obtained these documents and wanted to place the same on record of the learned trial by the impugned order the learned trial court had rejected such application. 4. None appears for the private respondent despite service 5. Mr. Vimal Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent-department supported the impugned order. 6. Considering the submission made at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that once the trial court had permitted the plaintiff petitioner to obtain the documents from the respondent-department, a certified copy whereof ought to have been allowed to be taken on record for consideration by the Court particular when under Section 65 of Evidence Act, the application had already been rejected by the learned trial court. The rejection of the application under Order 7, Rule 14 C.P.C., therefore, cannot be sustained. 7. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.4.2008 is set aside. Copy of this judgment be sent to private respondent No.7 as well as learned trial courtWrit Petition Allowed. *******