ORDER : These writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed on interlocutory application filed by the applicant/plaintiff No.3 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The plaintiff/applicant after leading his evidence has filed an application by producing the xerox copy of an unregistered partition deed dated 19.06.1972 and sought for marking of the said document as a secondary evidence. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that there was a memorandum of partition entered into between the parties on 19.06.1972 and by virtue of the same he produced the said document on the allegation that the original was retained by defendant No.1 at the time of partition and in spite of issuance of notice to him he has not produced the original partition document same before the Court. Therefore, in order to prove the plea taken up by the plaintiff he sought for production of said document as a secondary evidence and he has stated that he has only got xerox copy of the said document. 3. This application came to be contested by the other side and ultimately the trial Court has come to the conclusion that in the evidence of PW.1 he has not properly explained as to how he came into possession of the said document and also in the application and affidavit, he has not stated that, the original of the said document was retained by defendant No.1 and a copy of the said document was given to the plaintiff so as to allow the plaintiff to lead such secondary evidence. On the basis of the some contradictory statement made by PW1 in his evidence on that ground the trial Court has rejected such application. 4. After hearing both the parties, I have carefully perused the plaint averments. The learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court that the plaintiff has categorically stated in the plaint that there was a partition between the parties and to evidence the factum of partition a memorandum of partition was reduced into writing by one Mallappa on 19.06.1972 in the presence of his three sons and also in the presence of some respectable persons in the village and plaintiff No.1 and the father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 signed the memorandum of partition after understanding the contents of the same. 5. 5. He has also categorically stated that, as to who are all the persons present at that particular point of time etc. In support of the same it is not in dispute that a notice was issued to defendant No.1 to produce the original of the said partition deed. If at all he has got the original with him. For that notice defendant No.1 has stated that he is not having any such document with him. On the other-side he denies the existence of the said document itself. 6. It is the fundamental basic principle of law that once a party has pleaded in his pleading and also stated about the existence of a document, in such an eventuality an opportunity should be given to him to prove those pleadings in accordance with law. Secondary evidence can be lead by the parties under certain circumstances, if they say that the original is not with them and the original is with the opposite party, if they plead the same in the application and consequently if a notice is issued to otherside and if the other side denies the existence of such document itself or if he does not produce the said document then in such an eventuality to prove the existence of the document and also to prove the said document that was actually entered into between the parties an opportunity should be given to the party by leading secondary evidence. The plaintiff has lead his evidence as PW.1, there are some contradictory versions in the evidence. Though he has stated that it is a registered document entered into between the parties and that he has not obtained the document from defendant No.1 on that time etc. 7. Be that as it may, that the source of the possession of the document with the plaintiff need not be gone into at this stage because it is the suit for declaration and partition and there is a specific pleading that there was an earlier partition between the parties. Even otherwise than any document to evidence earlier partition also the party can lead evidence to prove the earlier partition. When it is specifically stated there was existence of some document pertaining to the partition, in such an eventuality the plaintiff is at liberty to prove the same either by means of producing the original document or by means of secondary evidence. 8. When it is specifically stated there was existence of some document pertaining to the partition, in such an eventuality the plaintiff is at liberty to prove the same either by means of producing the original document or by means of secondary evidence. 8. In this particular case the xerox copy of the document sought to be produced before the Court cannot be a proof of partition itself. Further added to that mere marking of the said document itself, is no way any proof of partition between the parties. As I have observed even without a document, earlier partition can be proved. Therefore, it makes it clear even if a document is produced before the Court, cogent and convincing evidence has to be produced before the Court with regard to the earlier partition between the parties. Merely a permission is granted to mark this document as a secondary evidence it will not be in any manner affect the right of the parties to contest the contents of the document and also with regard to the existence of the document itself by giving convincing evidence before the Court. In that context defendants also would get an opportunity to prove that the said document is a fake document or such type of document was not at all existence at any time and there was no opportunity for entering into such document. Then it is left to the Court even to discard the said document at the time of appreciating the evidence on record. 9. Under the above said circumstances, when once the parties are before the Court the lis between the parties should be completely decided by the Court. There should not be any scope for further litigation between the parties, and that is the object and aim of the civil jurisprudence. Therefore, bearing in mind the said object, I am of the opinion that Trial Court ought to have permitted the plaintiff to produce the said document and to adduce secondary evidence. 10. It is further made clear that as I have said that mere marking of the said document cannot be a proof of the contents of the document. Therefore, in the above said circumstances, the application filed for leading secondary evidence requires to be allowed. Of course there is no need to file to any such application for to lead any evidence. Therefore, in the above said circumstances, the application filed for leading secondary evidence requires to be allowed. Of course there is no need to file to any such application for to lead any evidence. Even if application is filed there is no bar for the Court to consider the said application on the basis of the materials on the record. Therefore, when once the foundation is laid stating that the defendant is having such document is with him though the defendant has denied the same, then it becomes subject matter of the evidence to be appreciated by the Court whether the defendant infact had the original with him and the document which is placed before the Court is the true and correct xerox copy of the same. Under the above said circumstances, this aspect can only be decided if the document is allowed to be marked before the Court. Hence, with these observations, the following order is passed ; ORDER : The writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in O.S.No.102/2012 dated 17.11.2017 on I.A.No. III filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, said application is allowed and the trial Court is hereby directed to permit the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence by producing the said document and provide full opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff in this regard and thereafter the trial Court has to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose of the suit on merits.