ORDER : Satyen Vaidya, J. 1. By way of instant petition, order dated 06.02.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Una in Civil Suit No. 269/2001 has been assailed. 2. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in civil suit No. 269 of 2001 before learned trial Court. He has filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that will dated 26.06.1973 executed by his uncle Shri Hans Raj in favour of defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) is wrong, illegal and void and plaintiff as well as defendants No. 1 to 4 are owner in possession of the suit land in equal share. Sale of some portion of suit land by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 5 has also been challenged. Relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants No. 1 and 5 from changing the nature of suit land by raising any sort of construction or alienation is also sought. In alternative, a decree of possession has been claimed. 3. The defendants are contesting the claim of plaintiff and the parties have been put to trial. Following issues have been framed in the suit on the pleadings of the parties:- 1. Whether Sh. Hans Raj died intestate and leaving behind no class-I heir? OPP. 2. Whether the defendants No. 1 to 4 are owners in possession of equal share of the suit land? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed? OPP. 4. Whether the sale of Kh, No. 3141 in favour of the defendant no. 5 is wrong and illegal? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP. 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP. 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and cause of action? OPD. 10. Whether Sh. Hans Raj executed a legal and valid will dated 26.06.1973? OPD. 11. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD. 12. Whether the defendant no. 5 is bonafide purchaser of the suit land as claimed? OPD. 13. Relief. 4. After amendment of the plaint, issues were again framed on 21.01.2006. 1. Whether the plaintiff and defendants no. OPD. 11. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD. 12. Whether the defendant no. 5 is bonafide purchaser of the suit land as claimed? OPD. 13. Relief. 4. After amendment of the plaint, issues were again framed on 21.01.2006. 1. Whether the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 4 are owners in possession in equal share qua the estate of the deceased Hans Raj as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the will dated 26.6.1973 alleged to be executed by Hans Raj in favour of the defendant no. 1 is wrong, illegal, null and void being suspicious, fraud and mis-representation and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and defendants no. 2 to 4 as alleged? OPP. 3. If issue No. 2 is proved in affirmative, whether the sale made by defendant no. 1 in favour of the defendant no. 5 is illegal, null and void? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed? OPP. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and cause of action as alleged? OPD. 9. Relief. 5. Without going into the question of overlapping of issues framed on different occasions in the same suit, it will suffice for the adjudication of this petition to notice issue No. 10 framed on 26.08.2003 and issue No. 2 framed on 21.01.2006. 6. The onus to prove the valid execution of will is always on the propounder. In this case, defendant No. 1 being the propounder of will was required to prove the same in affirmative. 7. Plaintiff and defendants led their respective evidence. On 29.08.2012, zimini order of the day recorded as under:- "...This is an old case of the year 2001, yet no rebuttal evidence is present. Neither cost paid. However, in the interest of justice, as prayed, one final opportunity is granted for rebuttal evidence, if any, and final arguments, as prayed for the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff for 7.9.2012. No further opportunity shall be granted being a time bound matter." 8. On the adjourned date, i.e. 07.09.2012, the following order came to be passed by the learned trial Court:- "As per the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff for 7.9.2012. No further opportunity shall be granted being a time bound matter." 8. On the adjourned date, i.e. 07.09.2012, the following order came to be passed by the learned trial Court:- "As per the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not got sufficient opportunities for rebuttal evidence from the Court, as such intends to get the case transferred by moving an application before the ld. District & Sessions Judge, Una. It appears that the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has lost confidence of the Court. The Court, as such, has no recuse itself from further hearing the matter. As such, the case file be referred to and sent to the ld. District & Sessions Judge, Una, for either transferring the case to any other Court or any further directions in this regard. Concerned Ahlmad to comply with. As prayed by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, the file be sent to the court of ld. District & Sessions Judge, Una, today itself. At this stage, applications under Order XL VII Rule 1, Under Section 45-A of Indian Evidence Act, Under order VII Rule 14 CPC along with two pulindas out of which one containing one spy pen camera and another pulinda containing one Micro SD Card 4GB, make Transcend bearing No. AO 6700/3736 and affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar Kaushal filed. At the request of ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, both these pulindas are sealed and taken on record." 9. From the proceedings, noted above, it is clear that plaintiff had been afforded last opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence on 07.09.2012, on that date, apart from affidavit of one Shri Anil Kumar Kaushal, three separate applications under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, under Order 7 rule 14 CPC and under Section 45A of Indian Evidence Act were filed on behalf of the plaintiff. In this case, order on application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is not in question. 10. By way of application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, it was averred that during the pendency of the case i.e. 05.08.2012, certain new events took place and following documents came into existence:- (a) A Spy Pen Camera which is as compact audio-Video Recorder. 10. By way of application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, it was averred that during the pendency of the case i.e. 05.08.2012, certain new events took place and following documents came into existence:- (a) A Spy Pen Camera which is as compact audio-Video Recorder. (b) A-4GB, Micro S.D. Card which is a memory card storage device both are electronic record as contemplated in Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to be treated as documents. (c) A certificate issued by the person occupying a reasonable official position namely Sh. V.K. Sharma, Deputy Manager (VAS 11) B.S.N.L. Corporate office H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001 in respect of the aforesaid electronic form evidence as required under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. (d) Retail Invoice dated 3 Aug 2012 issued by M/s. Action India Home Products, 2162/29, Guru Arjun Nagar, Main Patel Road, New Delhi- 110008, in respect of the products mentioned in para (a) and (b) above. 11. Plaintiff sought to place on record the above noted documents to be produced in evidence on the ground that aforesaid documents were not in existence at the time of fling of suit. It was specifically mentioned that the statement contained in electronic form was recorded by Shri Anil Kumar Kaushal on 05.08.2012 at the residence of DW-3 Shanti Lal with the aid of spy pen camera. The documents sought to be placed on record were in fact in support of the proceedings of recording of version of DW-3 Shanti Lal. Respondents filed reply to these applications and contested the claim of the plaintiff. 12. Another application under Section 45A was filed with a prayer to send the aforesaid documents in electronic form to an expert for his opinion. This application was also contested by the respondents by fling separate reply. 13. Both these applications came to be decided by learned trial Court vide order dated 06.02.2015, impugned in the present petition. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the impugned order is wrong, illegal and is result of wrongful exercise of jurisdiction. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the applications filed by the plaintiff should have been allowed as it would prove that DW-3 had deposed falsely before the learned trial Court. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the impugned order is wrong, illegal and is result of wrongful exercise of jurisdiction. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the applications filed by the plaintiff should have been allowed as it would prove that DW-3 had deposed falsely before the learned trial Court. It has further been submitted that as per impugned order, learned trial Court had expressed its inclination to exercise jurisdiction under Section 165 of the Evidence Act which meant that learned trial Court was agreeing with the contentions of plaintiff. It has further been stated that the learned trial Court was not justified in rejecting the applications of plaintiff on the ground that since DW-3 had already been cross-examined the prayer of plaintiff could not be allowed. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 15. Perusal of record of learned trial Court reveals that issue in respect of genuineness of validity of Will allegedly executed by late Shri Hans Raj is in question. Parties have already led their evidence. It was the stage of production of rebuttal evidence on behalf of the plaintiff that two applications, one under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and another under Section 45A of the Evidence Act came to be filed before the learned trial Court. It has also been revealed that on 07.09.2012, when these applications were filed an affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Kaushal was also submitted on record. Along-with application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, two packets including one spy pen camera and another with micro SD card 4GB and certain other documents were also placed on record. 16. This Court on 25.03.2015 stayed further proceedings in Civil Suit No. 269 of 2001 before the learned trial Court. In the meanwhile, on 25.02.2015, Shri Anil Kumar Kaushal was examined as a witness of plaintiff in rebuttal. His cross-examination was also conducted on the same day. Learned counsel for the plaintiff closed rebuttal evidence of plaintiff by reserving right to challenge the order dated 06.02.2015 passed by learned trial Court. 17. In the meanwhile, on 25.02.2015, Shri Anil Kumar Kaushal was examined as a witness of plaintiff in rebuttal. His cross-examination was also conducted on the same day. Learned counsel for the plaintiff closed rebuttal evidence of plaintiff by reserving right to challenge the order dated 06.02.2015 passed by learned trial Court. 17. Order 7 Rule 14 CPC contemplates different situations, Firstly, plaintiff is obligated to enter in a list and produce in the Court, at the time of presentation of plaint, all such documents on which the plaintiff either sues or relies upon and which are in his possession or power. Secondly, when such documents are not in possession or power, he is required to detail the possessor of such documents, thirdly, in case plaintiff, omits or fails to comply with the earlier two conditions, he is precluded from subsequently producing such documents for being received in evidence, without leave of the Court. Lastly, the rigors of aforesaid provision of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC does not apply to the documents which are produced for the cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses or handed over to such witness to refresh his memory. 18. The impugned order, while rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC of the plaintiff, does not deal with any of above noted situations. Learned trial Court was to adjudicate on the question whether plaintiff was entitled for grant of leave to produce the documents detailed in his application or not. Learned trial Court appears to have been swayed by the factors unconnected and irrelevant to the decision of application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. No reason whatsoever has been assigned by the learned trial Court for not allowing the production of documents as prayed by plaintiff. The impugned order to that extent deserves to be set aside. The documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff allegedly had come into existence only on 05.08.2012. It is trite that mere production of documents does not amount to proof of its existence or contents. Each and every document has to be proved in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. There is no reason that plaintiff should not have been allowed to produce on record documents annexed with his application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. 19. Each and every document has to be proved in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. There is no reason that plaintiff should not have been allowed to produce on record documents annexed with his application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. 19. As regards other application under Section 45A of the Evidence Act filed by the plaintiff, again the impugned order is deficient meeting with the legal requirement for adjudication of the prayer made by the plaintiff. However, in considered view of this Court, application of plaintiff under Section 45A of the Evidence Act was misconceived atleast at the stage of its fling. Section 45A of the Evidence Act deals with a situation where expert opinion is required to be formed by the Court on any matter relating to any information transmitting or stored in any computer resource or in any other electronic/digital form and further speaks about such opinion, if obtained, to be a relevant fact. In the facts of the instant case, no case was made out to seek an expert opinion as there was no requirement of such opinion at a stage when the information alleged to be stored in digital form was not even proved by way of evidence in the case. 20. In the light of the above discussion, the petition is partly allowed. Order dated 06.02.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Una in Civil Suit No. 269/2001 is set aside to the extent application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was rejected thereby. The application of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is ordered to be allowed and he is allowed to produce on record the documents annexed with his application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. The application under Section 45A of the Evidence Act filed by the plaintiff is ordered to be rejected for the reasons stated hereinabove. 21. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. Records of learned trial Court be sent back forthwith and the parties through learned counsel representing them are directed to appear before the trial Court on 14th September, 2021.