JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge, Gangapurcity, whereby the learned Judge has permitted an electronic recording and a transcript to be marked as an exhibit. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,28,200/- against the defendant-petitioners. It was alleged in the suit that plaintiff-respondents were in possession of Rs. 4,70,000/- in cash which belonged to their H.U.F. On 20.8.2003, due to some urgent reasons they had to leave for Jaipur. Therefore, they approached the defendant-petitioners, their neighbours, with whom they had cordial relations. The plaintiff-respondents requested the petitioners to keep the cash in safe custody. But on returning back, when the plaintiff-respondents asked the defendant-petitioners to return their money back, the defendant-petitioners refused to return it. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for recovery. During the trial, the plaintiff-respondents submitted a electronic voice recording, and a transcript of the recording. They requested the trial court to mark them as exhibits. By order dated 18.9.2012, the learned trial court permitted the electronic voice recording, and the transcript to be marked as exhibits. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Raunak Singhvi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that in case the said electronic recording and its transcript is permitted to be marked as exhibit, the petitioners would not be able to challenge its veracity and validity at a later stage of the trial. Secondly, the electronic voice recording has not been subjected to a test by the Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the learned counsel, it is essential that the voice be subjected to testing by the FSL as the petitioners have vehemently denied that the voice is theirs in the electronic recording. But without going through the procedure of getting the electronic recording tested by the FSL, the learned Judge has marked both electronic recording and its transcript, as an exhibit. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. 5. It is, indeed, trite to state that a distinction has to be drawn between marking a document as an exhibit, and in assessing its evidentiary value during the course of trial. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. 5. It is, indeed, trite to state that a distinction has to be drawn between marking a document as an exhibit, and in assessing its evidentiary value during the course of trial. Merely by marking a document as an exhibit, the court does not claim and does not accept the contents of the document as gospel truth. Thus, the veracity of the content of the electronic recording are still subject to the objection being raised by the petitioners and is subject to the report of the FSL, in case, the electronic recording were to be sent to the FSL for its report. This point has been duly noted by the learned Judge. Therefore, the confusion that exits in the mind of the petitioners that merely by exhibiting, the evidentiary value has been accepted is misplaced. Since the learned Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for the impugned order, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the said impugned order. 6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is devoid of any merits. It is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******