ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 26.02.2015 in Title Suit No. 39/2010, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner is defendant no.7 in Title Suit No. 39/2010. The petitioner filed application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.02.2015. 3. The counsel for the petitioner took adjournments on 12.10.2015 and 16.10.2015. Today on second call also, the counsel for the petitioner is absent. 4. The counsel for respondent no.1 is present. 5. Title Suit No. 39/2010 was instituted for a decree of confirmation of the plaintiff’s possession over 3¼th decimal land in Schedule ‘B’ and for declaration that sale-deed dated 28.06.2004 is illegal and null and void. Prayers for mandatory injunction as well as an order for demolition of construction over Schedule ‘B’ property have also been made in the suit. In the suit, defendant no.7 was examined as defendant witness no.4. The defendant no.7 was however, recalled on 15.12.2012 and he filed fresh affidavit dated 17.12.2012. Earlier, application under Order XIII Rule 8 CPC was filed on 30.07.2013, which was dismissed on 20.01.2014. Again on 31.01.2014, application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC was filed. The said application reads as under: “1. That Mubarak Hussain wants to say about search of Hukumnama fardamin Report and rent Roll. 2. That Section 65(5) Evidence Act when the original has been destroyed or lost or can’t be produced.” 6. During his examination, defendant no.7 did not depose about loss of Hukumnama, Fardamin Report, Rent Roll etc., rather order dated 20.01.2014 discloses that application under Order XIII Rule 8 CPC was filed for impounding Hukumnama, Fardamin Report and Rent Roll. These documents have been marked as Ext. X, X/1 and X/2 for identification. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no infirmity in impugned order dated 26.02.2015 and, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed