JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition arises out of the order dated 26/9/2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.51/2013, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff to lead the secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act and has dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant to frame the additional issue under Order 14, Rule 5 of CPC. 2. At the outset, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not press for the challenge as regards the dismissal of his application under Order 14, Rule 5 of CPC, however, he is aggrieved by that part of the impugned order, whereby the respondent-plaintiff has been permitted to lead the secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. According to him, the Trial Court has misinterpreted the earlier judgment passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.4552 of 2012 and has allowed the said application of the respondent, though there was no compliance of the provisions contained in Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel Mr. Prahlad Sharma for the respondent-plaintiff has, however, submitted that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the affidavit stating the existence of the original family settlement deed. Of course he has conceded that the respondent has not complied with the provisions contained in section 65 of the Evidence Act. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Prahlad Sharma for the respondent-plaintiff has, however, submitted that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the affidavit stating the existence of the original family settlement deed. Of course he has conceded that the respondent has not complied with the provisions contained in section 65 of the Evidence Act. 3. In the instant case, it appears that earlier the Trial Court had rejected the application of the respondent-plaintiff for taking on record the said copy of the family settlement by way of secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, which order having been challenged before this Court, this Court had dismissed the said petition by observing as under:- ".....Thus, without there being any evidence with regard to the existence of the original document and with regard to the circumstances under which secondary evidence should be permitted to be led under section 65 of the Evidence Act, the trial court could not have come to the conclusion whether such a document is admissible in evidence by way of secondary evidence or not.As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court.However, it will be open for the petitioner-plaintiff to re-agitate the issue with regard to the admissibility of document in question by way of secondary evidence under section 65 of Evidence Act, during the course of trial of the suit and the trial court shall decide the same at the relevant stage in accordance with law". 4. Despite the said order having been passed by this Court, the Trial Court allowed the application of the respondent-plaintiff without assigning any reasons for permitting the respondent to lead the secondary evidence in respect of the document, namely, family settlement. At this juncture, beneficial reference of the decisions of the Apex Court in case of H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs v. A. Ramalingam, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1492 & in case of J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani, (2007) 5 SCC 730 is required to be made. In the instant case, though the respondent-plaintiff has filed the affidavit for examination in chief referring to the said copy of the family settlement, the respondent has not narrated any of the circumstances mentioned in Section 65 for buttressing his application to lead the secondary evidence with regard to the said document. In the instant case, though the respondent-plaintiff has filed the affidavit for examination in chief referring to the said copy of the family settlement, the respondent has not narrated any of the circumstances mentioned in Section 65 for buttressing his application to lead the secondary evidence with regard to the said document. The Trial Court, in utter disregard of the settled legal position, has allowed the said application of the respondent-plaintiff vide the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside. However, it is observed that the respondent-plaintiff shall be at liberty to apply for leading secondary evidence as per the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act and in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in the afore-stated decisions. 5. In that view of the matter, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The petition stands allowed accordingly.Petition Allowed. *******