Judgment : Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) This petition takes exception to the order dated 13/12/2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Achalpur whereby the application (Exh. 103) filed by the petitioners herein for being permitted to lead secondary evidence in respect of two documents, i.e. Gift Deed dated 27/12/2006 and Relinquishment Deed dated 24/11/2006 came to be rejected. 3) The petitioners are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.36/2007. The said suit has been filed for a declaration that the petitioners have no concern whatsoever with the suit property and that the alleged partition effected by the petitioners was illegal. In the said suit, the petitioners filed their written statement along with their reply to the application for grant of temporary injunction. The petitioners have also filed their counter claim. In the said counter claim, the petitioners have laid a claim to the property on the basis of the said Relinquishment Deed dated 24/11/2006 whereby the sister of the plaintiff and the defendants has relinquished her share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs in the counter claim, i.e. the original defendants and the Gift Deed, which has been purportedly executed by the defendant no.2 in favour of the plaintiff. 4) The defendants had through notice dated 7/10/2010 called upon the plaintiff to produce documents, namely, the said Relinquishment Deed and the Gift Deed. In reply thereto, which is annexed to the above petition as Annexure `D', the plaintiff did not deny the custody of the said documents. However, he contended that the said documents are not related to the subject matter of the suit and, therefore, there was no need to produce the same. Thereafter, on 28/10/2010, the trial Court passed an order directing the defendants, i.e. petitioners herein to take further steps. In accordance with the said direction, the defendants, i.e. petitioners herein filed application (Exh. 103) for being permitted to lead secondary evidence, which application came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 13/12/2010. The principal ground for rejection was that the said documents have no nexus with the claim in the suit as the suit is based on the Will Deed dated 6/7/2004. 103) for being permitted to lead secondary evidence, which application came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 13/12/2010. The principal ground for rejection was that the said documents have no nexus with the claim in the suit as the suit is based on the Will Deed dated 6/7/2004. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division has observed that the plaintiff was claiming ownership on the strength of the Will Deed and not on the basis that his sister has relinquished her share in his favour. The trial Court also observed that since the suit is kept for cross-examination of the plaintiff, the application filed at the said juncture was not tenable and, therefore, rejected the same. 5) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In the instant case, it is relevant to note that the defendants, i.e. petitioners herein have filed their counter claim wherein they have adverted to the said two documents being Relinquishment Deed dated 24/11/2006 and the registered Gift Deed dated 27/12/2006. The defendants, i.e. the plaintiffs in the counter claim are laying a claim to the suit property on the basis of the said two documents. It is pertinent to note that though the defendants called upon the plaintiff to produce the said two documents, but in reply the plaintiff did not say anything about the custody of the said documents, but contended that the said documents were not relevant. Relevancy of the documents would undoubtedly be considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. However, considering the fact that the defendants, who were relying upon the said documents in the counter claim and since the evidence of the defendants is yet to begin, it was not proper on the part of the trial Court to reject the application filed by the petitioners, i.e. defendants to lead secondary evidence in respect of the said documents. More so, in view of the fact that the plaintiff though not denying the custody, has not produced the said documents. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 13/12/2010 is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside, resultantly the application (Exh. 103) would have to be allowed and the defendants would, therefore, be entitled to prove the said documents, i.e. Relinquishment Deed dated 24/11/2006 and Gift Deed dated 27/12/2006 by leading secondary evidence. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 13/12/2010 is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside, resultantly the application (Exh. 103) would have to be allowed and the defendants would, therefore, be entitled to prove the said documents, i.e. Relinquishment Deed dated 24/11/2006 and Gift Deed dated 27/12/2006 by leading secondary evidence. 6) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs.