ORDER : The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2019 vide Annexure-A, has filed this Writ Petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein had filed a suit for ejectment in S.C.No.1949 of 2016 against the petitioner on the ground that the respondent has become the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Registered Will dated 18.07.2008. It is further pleaded that the petitioner herein was a tenant under Muniswamappa @ Chinnappa in respect of the portion of the said building and the said Muniswamappa @ Chinnappa executed a Registered Will dated 18.07.2008 bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent. Muniswamappa @ Chinnappa died on 16.08.2011. After the death of Muniswamappa, the respondent became the landlord of the suit schedule property. The respondent requested the petitioner to vacate the suit schedule property and further the petitioner fell in arrears of rent. The respondent issued legal notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the premises. The petitioner did not reply to the said notice. Hence the respondent is constrained to file the suit. 3. The petitioner appeared and filed his written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. The respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of Code of Civil Procedure seeking for production of certified copy of the Registered Will dated 18.07.2008 on the ground that the original is kept in possession of the respondent to show before the concerned to establish his right and title over the suit schedule property and he could not produce the same at the time of filing of the suit. Now, when the case was posted for evidence, the respondent has filed an application for production of certified copy of the Registered Will. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing objections contending that the respondent has not laid down any foundation for non-production of primary document and further contended that the plaintiff has not mentioned reasons for non-production of the original document at the earlier instance. Hence the petitioner prayed to reject the application. 5. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing objections contending that the respondent has not laid down any foundation for non-production of primary document and further contended that the plaintiff has not mentioned reasons for non-production of the original document at the earlier instance. Hence the petitioner prayed to reject the application. 5. The Trial Court after considering the application and objections and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, passed an order dated 06.06.2019 allowing the application i.e. I.A. No.2 and permitted the respondent to produce the said document. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court has filed this Writ Petition. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has not made out a ground for production of the document at this stage and the certified copy cannot be admitted in evidence. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 8. The respondent has filed a suit for ejectment wherein in the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded in paragraph 3 of the plaint that originally the suit property was owned by one Muniswamappa @ Chinnappa. Said Muniswamappa during his lifetime had executed a Registered Will dated 18.07.2008 bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent. There is a reference about the document in the plaint. The respondent in the application mentioned that he has retained the original Registered Will, in order to produce the same before the authorities for establishing title over the suit schedule property. The respondent has obtained the certified copy of the Registered Will. 9. Merely, the respondent is permitted to produce document. The petitioner would not be put to any loss. As far as the apprehension of the petitioner that the certified copy of the Registered Will cannot be marked without laying a foundation, as laid down under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Trial Court may consider the objection if raised by the petitioner at the time of marking the said document, that whether the respondent has laid any foundation for marking a secondary evidence i.e., certified copy of the Registered Will. That mere allowing the respondent to produce the document does not amount to proving the contents of the said document. That mere allowing the respondent to produce the document does not amount to proving the contents of the said document. Hence the Trial Court, after considering the entire material on record has rightly allowed the application and has rightly allowed the respondent to produce document. Hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. 10. It is needless to say, if the respondent tender the said document i.e., certified copy of the Registered Will dated 18.07.2008 in evidence, it is for the petitioner to raise objections at the time of marking the said document.