JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of the contract, for handing-over possession and to declare the gift deed dated 17.6.2005, and the sale deed dated 26.3.2007 as illegal, null and void, against the respondents. In their reply, the respondent No.2 had claimed that the alleged agreement to sell, between the petitioner and him, was actually a forged agreement as on the relevant date, i.e. on 2.6.2003, he was not even available in Jaipur. According to respondent No.2, on 2.6.2003, he had left Jaipur by Jodhpur-Bikaner-Guwahati Express for Guwahati (Assam) where respondents No.3 and 4, his daughter and son-in-law, were staying. During pendency of the proceedings, respondent No.2 had submitted certain documents which were taken on record. In order to counter the stand taken by respondent No.2 that he was unavailable in Jaipur on the relevant date, the plaintiff-petitioner produced certain documents alongwith an application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC; he prayed that these documents should be taken on record. However, by order dated 21.2.2013, the learned Judge dismissed the said application. Therefore the present petition before this court. 3. Mr. K.D. Gaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that under the Right to Information Act, he had inquired from the Railway Administration whether Jodhpur-Bikaner-Guwahati Express, the train by which respondent No.2 claimed to have travelled, had left Jaipur on 2.6.2003 or not. In its reply dated 7.4.2011, the Railway Department informed him that no such train had left Jaipur on 2.6.2003. According to the learned counsel, this document clearly falsifies the statement of respondent No.2 that he had left Jaipur by the said train on 2.6.2003. Thus, it was a material document which should have been taken on record. Moreover, he had further filed certain Income Tax Returns as well as the bank statement of SBBJ, Johari Bazar Branch, which clearly showed that respondent No.2 had entered into certain financial transactions with the bank on 2.6.2003. Thus, it was a material document which should have been taken on record. Moreover, he had further filed certain Income Tax Returns as well as the bank statement of SBBJ, Johari Bazar Branch, which clearly showed that respondent No.2 had entered into certain financial transactions with the bank on 2.6.2003. According to him, these documents also prove the fact that respondent No.2 was very much present in Jaipur on 2.6.2003. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has erred in dismissing the application. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Nikhil Simlote, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has strenuously contended that the learned Judge was justified in rejecting the application as the Income Tax Return, as well as the Bank Statement were merely photostat copies. Moreover, the Income Tax Return could be filed by the respondent No.2 even during his absence from Jaipur. Furthermore, even the Bank transactions can be held in his absence from Jaipur. Thus, these documents do not prove the fact that respondent NO.2 was available in Jaipur on 2.6.2003. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, and the documents submitted along with the petition. 6. It is foremost duty of the court to give ample opportunities to both the sides to establish their case. If the defendant had taken a position before the court, obviously, the plaintiff should be given ample opportunities to demolish the case of the defendant. Considering the fact that according to the defendant-respondent No.2, he had left Jaipur by Jodhpur-Bikaner-Guwahati train on 2.6.2003, the petitioner would be justified in wanting to produce certain documents which would disprove the stand being taken by respondent No.2. Thus, the learned Judge was not justified in concluding that the certificate issued by the Railways would be insufficient to disprove the stand being taken by respondent No.2. Hence, the learned Judge was unjustified in rejecting the application as far as the certificate of the Railways was concerned. 7. As far as the Income Tax Return is concerned, or the Bank Statement is concerned, obviously, neither of these two documents would prove the fact or would throw any light on the fact whether on 2.6.2003 respondent No.2 was present in Jaipur or not? After all, the Income Tax Return can be filed in absence of the assessee. 7. As far as the Income Tax Return is concerned, or the Bank Statement is concerned, obviously, neither of these two documents would prove the fact or would throw any light on the fact whether on 2.6.2003 respondent No.2 was present in Jaipur or not? After all, the Income Tax Return can be filed in absence of the assessee. Moreover, the bank transactions can also be done in his absence. Therefore, to that limited extent and also considering the fact that these were merely photostat copies of the original documents, the learned Judge was justified in concluding that these documents would not throw any light on the controversy involved or on the stand taken by the respondent No.2. 8. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this court partly allows this petition. It directs the learned Judge to take on record the certificate dated 7.4.2011 issued by the Railways and to proceed further with the trial. The stay application also stands disposed of.Petition Partly allowed. *******