JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – The petitioner, defendant in Title (P) Suit No.194 of 2002, is aggrieved of order dated 22.01.2010 by which application for marking Panchnama dated 04.11.1990 has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents is not present. 3. Order dated 28.06.2010 would reflect that respondent no.2 to 18 are proforma respondents and accordingly, no notice was issued to them. 4. By the impugned order dated 22.01.2010 the trial judge has held that the defendant has failed to establish existence of Panchnama dated 04.11.1990. Whether a document is admissible as secondary evidence under section 63 read with section 65 of the Evidence Act or not, and whether the contents of a document is admissible or not, are the issues which can be decided only at the stage of final hearing and not at the stage when application for marking Panchnama dated 04.11.1990 was filed by the defendants. The approach of the trial judge evidently was not correct. In fact, there is no necessity of filing an application for marking a document. The petitioner has pleaded that Panchnama dated 04.11.1990 has already been produced on record and accordingly the defendant would be at liberty to get Panchnama dated 04.11.1990 exhibited through his witness(es). Needless to indicate that the plaintiff shall be granted an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. 5. Finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.01.2010, it is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.