ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. The petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2013 whereby application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was rejected. Aggrieved of the same order, the respondents-defendants have moved a separate writ petition challenging the order vide which the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was allowed. 2. In writ petition No.14265/2013, it is argued by counsel for the petitioner that in the suit for cancellation of the sale deed filed in January, 2008, the interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. The parties whom he wants to implead have come in possession of the property knowing the fact that the lis was pending for cancellation of the sale deed. 3. Counsel for the respondents No.3 & 4 have opposed the writ petition. Their contention is that they are not the necessary parties in the suit as the relief claimed is for cancellation of the sale deed and even if they have entered into the possession of the property, it would be governed by the doctrine of lis pendens. 4. I have considered the contentions raised and have also perused the impugned order. 5. The main relief being for cancellation of sale deed dated 17.01.2008, the present respondents No. 3 & 4 are not necessary parties, as even if they are considered to be in possession, they have stepped into the shoes of respondent No.1 and will be governed by doctrine of lis pendens. The court below has therefore, not committed any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. The writ petition No.14265/2013 therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 6. As far as the writ petition No.1623/2014 is concerned, the petitioner-defendant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act are not applicable. 7. It is contended that in the application filed by the plaintiff, it was mentioned that the original cheque and original cheque return memo have been seized by the police during course of investigating in the FIR and the same have been sent to FSL. 8. 7. It is contended that in the application filed by the plaintiff, it was mentioned that the original cheque and original cheque return memo have been seized by the police during course of investigating in the FIR and the same have been sent to FSL. 8. It is contended that the third document i.e. letter of Sumit Surana, Director of the defendant is stated to be in possession of HDFC Bank, as per the application, and therefore, the same should have been summoned from HDFC Bank and the court below have committed error in permitting secondary evidence with relation to all the three documents referred to in the application. 9. Counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the writ petition. His contention is that the original cheque and the original cheque return memo have been seized by the police and have been sent to FSL and therefore, the same could not be produced within a reasonable time, as provided in clause (c) of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. 10. I have considered the contentions raised by the parties. 11. As per clause (c) of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time, Court can permit leading of secondary evidence. 12. The court below has observed that since the document have been sent to FSL, the same could not be produced within a reasonable time and has therefore, allowed the application. No illegality has been committed by the court as far as the documents Ex.1 and 2 i.e. original cheque and original cheque return memo are concerned. 13. However, since in the application it was mentioned that the letter of Sumit Surana is in possession of HDFC Bank, the court should not have permitted secondary evidence of such documents as the original admittedly was with HDFC Bank. To that extent, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the writ petition No. 1623/2014 filed by the defendant deserves to be and is partly allowed. 14. However, any observations made herein would not bar the parties for moving appropriate application for summoning the originals. 15. In view of the discussions made herein above, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14265/2013 is dismissed and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1623/2014 is partly allowed. Stay petitions also stand disposed.