ORDER : (Nupur Bhati, J.) 1. Though the matter has been listed in the "Fresh" category, upon the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally, today itself. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant no. 1 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7), 08.10.2014 (Annex.10) and 09.09.2024 (Annex.8) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Case No. 41/2005. 3. The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition call for the record and a. By an appropriate writ order and direction the orders dated 8-10-2024 (Annex 10) to the extent of patta admissibility to the extent of patta in question order dt 9-9-2024 Annex 8 and order dated 21-2-2014 Annex 7 passed by the learned trial court respectfully may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and the application filed by the petitioner under order 13 rule 3 read with 151 CPC may kindly be ordered to be allowed and plaint filed by plaintiff may kindly be ordered to be rejected. Any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled, may be granted in his favour and writ petition may be allowed with costs.” 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondents no.1 to 5/plaintiffs filed a suit (Annex.1) for possession and recovery of mesne profits along with permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant no.1 for the property known as Godhdo ki Bagechi, which is situated outside Chandpole Gate, near Naiyon ki Bagechi and Rambavdi, along with the photocopy of the patta of the disputed property (Annex.3). 5. Thereafter, the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application (Annex.5) under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('Act of 1872') for adducing the copy of original patta of the disputed property as secondary evidence, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7). Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant no. 1 filed his written statements, while raising a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the suit (Annex.1) on account of the valuation of the suit, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.09.2024 (Annex.8). 6. Subsequently, the petitioner/defendant no. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant no. 1 filed his written statements, while raising a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the suit (Annex.1) on account of the valuation of the suit, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.09.2024 (Annex.8). 6. Subsequently, the petitioner/defendant no. 1 filed an application under Order XIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') for rejection of the inadmissible evidence, which includes the photocopy of the patta of the disputed property, which was exhibited as Exhibit-1 and another exhibit, i.e. Exhibit-6 which is the patta of Purbiyon ki Bagechi, and while stating that it has been marked without the permission of the Court and was not presented by the respondents/plaintiffs at the time of filing the suit and therefore, it is inadmissible. The said application under Order XIII Rule 3 filed by the petitioner/defendant no.1 was partially allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 08.10.2024 (Annex.10), wherein the contention of the petitioner/defendant no.1 that Exhibit-1, copy of the Patta was inadmissible, was rejected. However, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 08.10.2024 (Annex.10) allowed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant no.1 to the extent of denying the respondents/plaintiffs to mark the document as Exhibit-6, i.e. the Patta of the Purbiyon ki Bagechi inasmuch as the same cannot be exhibited without following the due course of law. 7. Thus, aggrieved of the orders dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7), 09.09.2024 (Annex.8) and 08.10.2024 (Annex.10), passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner/defendant no. 1 has preferred this writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant no.1 submits that: a. Firstly, the learned Trial Court has erred in allowing the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Section 65 of the Act of 1872, vide the order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7), inasmuch as the genuineness of the patta itself is in question and therefore, when the genuineness of the document in itself is in question the learned Trial Court could not have allowed the photocopy of said document, i.e. the patta of the disputed property, in the instant case, to be produced as secondary evidence. b. Secondly, the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner/defendant no.1 inasmuch as the suit filed by the respondent no.1 to 5/plaintiffs is undervalued and therefore, the order dated 09.09.2024 (Annex.8), passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to quashed and set aside. c. Thirdly, the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/defendant no.1 under Order XIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC, inasmuch as the patta of the disputed property in itself is a disputed document since it does not bear any signature, and it is merely a handwritten document, therefore, the photocopy of such an evidence, which is in itself inadmissible, however, the photocopy of the said patta, which was exhibited as Exhibit 1 in pursuance of the order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7), passed by the learned Trial Court, ought to be rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant no.1 places reliance upon the following judgments: H. Siddiqui (Dead) by Lrs. v. A. Ramalingam, 2011 (2) CCC 1 (SC); Smt. J. Yashoda v. Smt. K. Shobha Rani [SLP(c) No. 12625/2005]; M/s Electro Mechanical Engineering Corporation & Anr. v. Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Alwar & Anr. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1335/2005 (RHC, Jaipur Bench)]; Murlidhar Yadav v. Dipti Singh & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1532/2005 (RHC, Jaipur Bench)]; Shankar Lal & Ors. v. The Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Shahpura & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8166/2005 (RHC, Jaipur Bench)]; Kunana Ram v. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Parbatsar & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2344/2006 (RHC, Jodhpur Bench)]; Anil Kumar and Ors. v. Shankar Lal [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15511/2010 (RHC, Jaipur Bench)]; Gordhan Lal Agarwal v. Mali Ram Modi & Anr., 2013 (2) CCC 314 (Rajasthan). 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the petitioner/defendant no.1 had not challenged the order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7) until now by which the learned Trial Court had allowed the respondents/plaintiffs to produce the photocopy (Exhibit-1) of the Patta as secondary evidence, and it was only by virtue of filing the present writ petition that the petitioner/defendant no. 1 has challenged the said order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7), without providing any reason as to what precluded him from challenging the said order, prior to filing the present writ petition, after a period of almost 10 years. 11. 1 has challenged the said order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7), without providing any reason as to what precluded him from challenging the said order, prior to filing the present writ petition, after a period of almost 10 years. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner/defendant no. 1 under Order XIII Rule 3 of the CPC, inasmuch as the photocopy of the patta of the disputed property was allowed to be produced as secondary evidence on the ground that the petitioner/defendant no. 1 has reserved the right to rebut the said evidence. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs also submits that the learned Trial Court has also dealt with the arguments of the petitioner/defendant no.1 that the patta of the disputed property in itself not genuine since it does not bear signatures of the authorities, while observing that the said document is older than 30 years and therefore, the stipulation under Section 90 of the Act of 1872 would be attracted and, thus, the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 08.10.2024 (Annex.10), warrants no interference by this Court. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused material available on record and judgments cited at the Bar. 14.1.1 This Court finds that the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7), while allowing the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Section 65 of the Act of 1872 has categorically observed that though the genuineness of the said patta is in dispute, however the same has to be determined upon examination of the evidence as well as cross-examination, and that the burden is upon the respondents/plaintiffs, therefore, at that stage the learned Trial Court had rightly allowed the application filed under Section 65 of the Act of 1872. 14.1.2 Moreover, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Section 65 of the Act of 1872, way back on 21.02.2014 (Annex.7), and it was only on 17.10.2024, by way of filing the present writ petition that the petitioner has laid a challenge to the said order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7), i.e. 10 years after passing of the order, without assigning any reason for the delay. Thus, this Court deems it fit not to grant indulgence in the order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7), passed by the learned Trial Court. Thus, this Court deems it fit not to grant indulgence in the order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7), passed by the learned Trial Court. 14.2.1 This Court finds that the learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.09.2024 (Annex.8), while dealing with the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner/defendant no.1 has observed that the burden to prove that the suit was undervalued was upon the petitioner/defendant no. 1. It is seen that the learned Trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that since it is a suit for possession, the court-fee has to be computed on the market value of the property in accordance with Section 29 of the Rajasthan High Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 ('Act of 1961') and the market value of the property would be determined, as prescribed under Section 7 of the Act of 1961. Thus, upon a conjoint reading of the above-mentioned provisions, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that in cases where the rent has not been fixed for such land, the market value would be 25 times the market value of the land of similar nature in the vicinity of the said land. 14.2.2 However, it is seen that the learned Trial Court has categorically observed that, in pursuance of the same, the petitioner presented only a document containing the 'District Level Committee Rate' ('DLC Rate') (Exb.1), which could not applied since the disputed land is a residential land, while the DLC rates, as submitted by the petitioner/defendant no.1, are pertaining to commercial land only and that, it was incumbent upon the petitioner/defendant no.1 to produce evidence for the purpose of determining the market value in accordance with Section 7(b) of the Act of 1961, which the petitioner/defendant no.1 failed to do so. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly dealt with the preliminary objection of the petitioner/defendant no.1 and rejected the same, while taking into account that the statute itself prescribes for the modus operandi for the determination of the market value, and the petitioner/defendant no.1 has failed to prove the contrary. 14.2.3 It is also seen that the learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that it would be plausible to assume that the rent of the disputed property at present would be Rs. 14.2.3 It is also seen that the learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that it would be plausible to assume that the rent of the disputed property at present would be Rs. 500/- per month, however, the suit had been filed way back in the year 2004 and considering the situation at that point of time, the respondents/plaintiffs have made their assertions accordingly, which was not refuted by the petitioner/defendant no.1. Therefore, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the merely on the basis of DLC rates as submitted by the petitioner/defendant no.1, the market value of the disputed property cannot be ascertained, especially when nothing else has been placed on record by the petitioner/defendant no.1 to show the prevalent rates for the properties of similar nature, situated in the vicinity of the disputed property and thus, the suit falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. 14.3.1 This Court finds that vide the order dated 08.10.2024, learned Trial Court, while dealing with the inadmissibility of the photocopy of the Patta (Exhibit 1) has taken into consideration the order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7), and observed that the permission for producing the photocopy of patta as secondary evidence was granted on the ground that the petitioner/defendant no.1 reserves his right to cross-examine the same in order to ascertain the validity and authenticity of the said document. 14.3.2 Moreover, the learned Trial Court has also taken into account the fact that the said document is more than 30 years old which would attract the provision of Section 90 of the Act of 1872, wherein if the document, which is proved to be 30 years old and if the said document is produced by the party who has a proper custody, i.e. under the care of whom the document would naturally be, the Court may presume that the signatures and every other part of the document, which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is indeed that person's handwriting. The relevant provision is reproduced as under: “90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old. The relevant provision is reproduced as under: “90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old. –– Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. Explanation.–– Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable. This explanation applies also to section 81.” Therefore, taking into consideration the stipulation of the statute, coupled with the fact that the respondents/plaintiffs have produced the photocopy of the patta, along with its translation in hindi language, the learned Trial Court has observed that in the present case too, since the document (Exhibit 1), i.e. the photocopy of the Patta is in itself more than 30 years old and the said document is allegedly in the name of the respondents/plaintiffs' ancestors. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner/defendant no.1, under Order XIII Rule 3 of CPC, for rejecting the photocopy of Patta (Exhibit 6) as inadmissible evidence. 14.3.3 Furthermore, it is also seen that the learned Trial Court has categorically observed that the objection regarding the admissibility of a document has to be resolved at first instance, however in the instant case, the respondents/plaintiffs had filed an application under Section 65 of the Act of 1872 for producing the photocopy of the patta as secondary evidence was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7) and it is also seen by this Court that the order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7) has been challenged by the petitioner/defendant no.1 by way of filing the present writ petition only. Moreover, it is also seen from the material available on record that the petitioner/defendant no.1 has not challenged the order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7) at the time of filing the application under Order XIII Rule 3 of the CPC before the learned Trial Court. Thus, the order dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7) continued to remain in force until this day as rightly noted by the learned Trial Court. 14.3.4 This Court also finds that the learned Trial Court has also observed that at that stage, i.e. at the time of hearing the application under Order XIII Rule 3 of CPC, filed by the petitioner/ defendant no.1 , there was no objection with regard to the said document being sufficiently stamped or registered. Learned Trial Court has also taken into account the fact that the petitioner/defendant no.1 has not made out a case as to how the said document is irrelevant to the suit, while the respondents/plaintiffs have stated that the said document is the photocopy of the patta issued to their ancestors and therefore, under the given circumstances, the learned Trial Court has rightly observed that the said document does not appear to be irrelevant to the suit and inadmissible in evidence. 14.3.5 It is also seen that the learned Trial Court has also observed that merely because the said document, i.e. Exhibit 1, could not be produced earlier, the same cannot be treated as inadmissible inasmuch as vide order dated 09.09.2024 (Annex.8), the learned Trial Court has recorded evidence only to the extent of jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court, and thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly observed that the document cannot be rendered as inadmissible merely because it was not produced earlier by the respondents/plaintiffs, in the present case. 14.3.6 This Court finds that under Order XIII Rule 3 of the CPC, the Court is empowered to reject evidence at any stage, if it finds that the said evidence is irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, while recording the grounds for the same. The relevant provision is reproduced as under: “3. 14.3.6 This Court finds that under Order XIII Rule 3 of the CPC, the Court is empowered to reject evidence at any stage, if it finds that the said evidence is irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, while recording the grounds for the same. The relevant provision is reproduced as under: “3. Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents.—The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection” Thus, this Court, in light of the discussion made hereinabove read with the stipulation of Order XIII Rule 3 of the CPC, finds that the learned Trial Court has passed a reasoned order, taking into account both the relevancy as well as admissibility, while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/defendant no.1 under Order XIII Rule 3 of CPC, for rejecting the photocopy of Patta (Exhibit 1) as secondary evidence. 15. This Court finds that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not render assistance to this Court. 16. It is seen that learned counsel for the petitioner has also made a pleading in the present writ petition that the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed under Order XIII Rule 3 of the CPC, without considering the fact that Exhibit 6 was marked by the respondents/plaintiffs, in violation of the law inasmuch as the said document was not produced at the time of filing the suit and in case the respondents/plaintiffs had to exhibit the said document at the later stage, the same had to be exhibited only after taking leave of the Court, which was not done in the present case and therefore, the order dated 08.10.2024 (Annex.10) passed by the learned Trial Court, suffers from infirmities and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The relevant paras from the writ petition are reproduced as under: “10. The relevant paras from the writ petition are reproduced as under: “10. That the plaintiff has filed affidavit in respect evidence and marked the document in evidence that the patta in disputed mark as pradase-I photo copy of the patta as such patta in dispute not a original patta, not a compaire copy and also not a certified copy as such patta is not admissible evidence and could not be marked as pradas and also objected the pradase- 6 that the document has not been filed as per law as such paradise -6 has been taken on record as such could not be marked as paradise-6 but learned trial court has rejected the application under order 13 rule 3 R/w Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner vide order dated 8-10-2024. Copy of said application dated 8-10-2024 and photo copy of order dt 8-10-2024 are being herewith and marked as Annexure-9 and 10. 11. That the petitioner has move an application under order 13 Rule 3 Read with 151 CPC in respected of markeing of document as evidence that the patta in disputed mark as Pradase-1 photo copy of Patta as such patta in dispute not a original patta, not a compare copy and also not a certified copy as such patta is not admissible evidence and could not be marked as pradast and also objected the pradase-6 that the document has not been filed as per law as such paradise-6 has been taken on record as such could not be marked as paradise-6 but learned trial court has rejected the application under order 13 rule 4 R/w 15 Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner of order dated 8-10-2024. Copy of said application dated 08-10-2024 and order dated 8-10-2024 to the extent of admissibility of patta in question are being submitted herewith and marked as Annexure 9 & 10 respectively.” However, it is seen upon perusal of the order dated 08.10.2024 (Annex.10), passed by the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court had categorically observed that the said document, i.e. Exhibit 6 cannot be exhibited without taking it on record, in accordance with law and that the learned Trial Court had denied the respondents/plaintiffs from marking the said document, i.e. the patta of the Purbiyo ki Bagechi as Exhibit 6, while reserving the right of the petitioner to raise objections. The relevant paragraph of the order passed by the learned Trial Court is reproduced as under: ^^mDr foospukuqlkj izfroknh la[;k 01 dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkuk&i= vUrxZr vkns'k 13 fu;e 03 lifBr /kkjk 151 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk mDrkuqlkj fuLrkj.k fd;k tkdj nLrkost iêk laor~ 1816 dh QksVksizfr ds laca/k esa izfroknh dh vkifÙk vLohdkj dh tkrh gS] mDr nLrkost dks [k.Mu djus dk izfroknh dk vf/kdkj lqjf{kr gS ,oa nLrkost ekdZ 06 iwjfc;ksa dk cxhph dk iêk dh izekf.kr izfr dks izn'kZ ekdZ djus dh vuqefr iznku ugha dh tkrh gSA^^ Therefore, in the light of the observation made by the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the view that the contention of the petitioner/defendant no.1 that the Exhibit 6 was marked as Exhibit without the leave of the Court, at a belated stage, is devoid of merits and this Court refrains itself from granting indulgence to this extent, inasmuch as the pleading of the petitioner/defendant no.1 in itself misconstrued. 17. Therefore, in the light of discussion made hereinabove, no indulgence is granted by this Court in the orders dated 21.02.2014 (Annex.7), 09.09.2024 (Annex.8) and 08.10.2024 (Annex.10), passed by the learned Trial Court. 18. Accordingly, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Stay Petition and misc. application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.