ORDER : 1. By way of filing the present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by Learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metropolitan. Petitioners have also prayed that the applications filed by the respondents-plaintiffs may kindly be rejected and the Learned Court below may be restrained from taking the documents produced by respondents-plaintiffs on record as admissible in evidence and mark them as exhibits. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a petition for recovery of possession, declaration, mesne-profit and permanent injunction against the petitioners-defendants while stating that the petitioners are the encroachers over a part of the property, Plot No. 455 admeasuring 556.11 square yard situated at Pal Link Road, Jodhpur. The said property had been allotted to Late Shri Ramchandra (father of the respondent/plaintiff No. 1) and respondent/plaintiff No. 1 by Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur on 07.10.1970 and thereafter a license in respect of which was issued in the name of the father of the respondent-plaintiff and respondent-plaintiff No. 1 on 15.5.1974. Also, a patta in respect of the allotted land was issued in favour of father of the respondent-plaintiff and respondent-plaintiff No. 1 which was registered on 22.06.1991. 3. Furthermore, the husband of petitioner-defendant No. 1 late Taj Mohammad had illegally encroached upon a part of the suit property of the defendants to the extent of one 88 square yard and thereafter had made an application before the Land Conversion Officer, Jodhpur, for regularizing his illegal encroachment which was accepted and resultantly on 03.03.1990 a patta was issued in favour of the Taj Mohammed. Thereafter, the grant of Patta in favour of the Taj Mohammad was contested by the respondent-plaintiff at various forums and Shri Taj Mohammad also filed a suit qua UIT, Jodhpur, wherein an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioners. Moreover, the part of suit property which was not possessed by the respondents/plaintiffs was sold by them vide registered deed dated 28.7.2008 to Manohar Lal Paliwal. 4. Learned Court after hearing both the parties, framed 10 issues and decided the dispute on 19.12.2022. Thereafter, respondent-plaintiff No. 2 had submitted an affidavit for the purpose of examination-in-chief, but never produced relevant documents in support of the plaint and only produced mechanical copies or the certified copies of the documents submitted in support of the plaint. 5. 4. Learned Court after hearing both the parties, framed 10 issues and decided the dispute on 19.12.2022. Thereafter, respondent-plaintiff No. 2 had submitted an affidavit for the purpose of examination-in-chief, but never produced relevant documents in support of the plaint and only produced mechanical copies or the certified copies of the documents submitted in support of the plaint. 5. Though the respondent-plaintiff No. 2 in the affidavit (Annexure-4) had marked the copy of the license dated 15.05.1974 as Exhibit-1 and the Copy of the Patta dated 22.06.1991 as Exhibit-2, but had not produced original documents at the time of filling the plaint and moreover even at the time of filling affidavit the original copy of the documents were not produced. Therefore, the respondents-plaintiffs had filed an application on 04.08.2023 under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. for taking these documents on record. 6. The respondents-plaintiffs also filed another application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, seeking permission for leading secondary evidence as they had not submitted the original documents. Subsequently, the Learned trial court vide common order dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure-7) has decided both the applications i.e. the application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, filed by the plaintiffs and resultantly allowed the respondent-plaintiff to give photocopies of documents as evidence. 7. Being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 7, Jodhpur, the petitioners-defendants have preferred this Writ Petition. 8. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the respondents-plaintiffs have neither before nor after the settlement of issues has produced the relevant documents in support of their plaint and therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. 9. Learned Counsel for petitioners also submits that the documents relied by the respondents-plaintiffs are not original documents as required by Section 64 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but were the certified copies or photo state copies of the original documents which are inadmissible in evidence. Furthermore, he submits that these copies are only admissible in evidence if respondents are able to satisfy the procedural requirement as under Section 65 & Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and despite this, the Learned Court has permitted the documents produced by the respondents/plaintiffs as admissible in evidence. 10. Furthermore, he submits that these copies are only admissible in evidence if respondents are able to satisfy the procedural requirement as under Section 65 & Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and despite this, the Learned Court has permitted the documents produced by the respondents/plaintiffs as admissible in evidence. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the party who seeks to produce secondary evidence must establish the reason for the non-production of primary evidence, unless, it is established that the original documents are lost or destroyed or are being deliberately withheld by the party and thus, a secondary evidence in respect of that document cannot be accepted. 11. Learned Counsel for petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Dhulichand vs. Madhavlal Dube and Another, (1975) 4 SCC 664 . The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: “12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the High Court in this respect calls for no interference. According to clause (a) of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it. Clauses (b) to (g) of section 65 specify some other contingencies wherein secondary evidence relating to a document may be given, but we are not concerned with those clauses as it is the common case of the parties that the present case is not covered by those clauses. In order to bring his case within the purview of clause (a) of section 65, the appellant filed applications on July 4, 1973, before respondent No. 1 was examined as a witness, praying that the said respondent be ordered to produce the original manuscript of which, according to the appellant, he had filed photostat copy. In order to bring his case within the purview of clause (a) of section 65, the appellant filed applications on July 4, 1973, before respondent No. 1 was examined as a witness, praying that the said respondent be ordered to produce the original manuscript of which, according to the appellant, he had filed photostat copy. Prayer was also made by the appellant that in case respondent No. 1 denied that the said manuscript had been written by him, the photostat copy might be got examined from a handwriting expert. The appellant also filed affidavit in support of his applications. It was, however, nowhere stated in the affidavit that the original document of which the photostat copy had been filed by the appellant was in the possession of respondent No. 1. There was also no other material on the record to indicate that the original document was in the possession of respondent No. 1. The appellant further failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken, respondent No. 1 in his affidavit denied being in possession of or having anything to do with such a document. The photostat copy appeared to the High Court to be not above suspicion. In view of all the circumstances, the High Court came to the conclusion that no foundation had been laid by the appellant for leading secondary evidence in the shape of the photostat copy. We find no infirmity in the above order of the High Court as might justify interference by this Court.” 12. Learned Counsel for petitioners further relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs. vs. A. Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240 . The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: “10. Provisions of Section 65 of the Act 1872 provide for permitting the parties to adduce secondary evidence. However, such a course is subject to a large number of limitations. In a case where original documents are not produced at any time, nor, any factual foundation has been led for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. However, such a course is subject to a large number of limitations. In a case where original documents are not produced at any time, nor, any factual foundation has been led for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus, secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. Mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof.” 13. Per Contra, Learned Counsel for respondents submits that the Patta/lease deed issued in favour of Ramchandra and Murli Manohar Paliwal was registered at Sub-Registrar First, Jodhpur, on 22.06.1991 and a certified photocopy of it has been marked as Exhibit-2. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the copy of the License dated 15.05.1974, issued in favour of Murli Manohar, was marked as Exhibit-1 and was handed over to Manohar Lal Paliwal and is in his possession and therefore, the copy of the license should be allowed to be taken on record as a secondary evidence. 14. Learned Counsel for respondents also submits that as per the statement of respondent-plaintiff number 2, when he sold the property to Manohar Lal Paliwal, the original documents came in the possession of Manohar Lal Paliwal, therefore, the said original documents are in existence and can be verified from Manohar Lal Paliwal. However, Manohar Lal Paliwal is not a party to this claim and the details/address of Manohar Lal Paliwal is not known to the respondents. 15. Learned Counsel for respondents have relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J. Yashoda vs. Smt. Shobha Rani, (2007) 5 SCC 730 . The relevant portion of the judgment are reproduced as under: “9. The rule which is the most universal, namely that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit shall be produced, decides this objection that rule only means that, so long as the higher or superior evidence is within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. The rule which is the most universal, namely that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit shall be produced, decides this objection that rule only means that, so long as the higher or superior evidence is within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. Section 65 deals with the proof of the contents of the documents tendered in evidence. In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. Under Section 64, documents are to be provided by primary evidence. Section 65, however permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned. The conditions laid down in the said Section must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted, Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section.” 16. Learned Counsel for respondents further relied on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Abdul Mutlib vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 (1) CCC 098 (Raj.). The relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced as under: “12. The upshot of the above discussion is that a photo-stat copy of a carbon copy made from the original by mechanical process is admissible in evidence, provided that it is compared with the carbon copy within the meaning of secondary evidence, as defined under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the legality, admissibility and relevancy of the said document may be adjudged by the court only when the case is finally decided.” 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 18. An application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC dated 04.08.2023 was filed with the prayer to bring on record the certified copies of license dated 15.05.1974 and the lease deed/patta dated 22.06.1991 as a secondary evidence. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 18. An application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC dated 04.08.2023 was filed with the prayer to bring on record the certified copies of license dated 15.05.1974 and the lease deed/patta dated 22.06.1991 as a secondary evidence. The said property was sold by the respondents/plaintiffs to one Shri Manoharlal Paliwal and therefore, the original documents were also in his possession and there were no details available with the respondents with respect to his residence and it was not possible for the respondents to obtain original documents the finding given by the learned court below that it was not possible for the respondents/plaintiffs to produce the original documents on record as Shri Manoharlal Paliwal was also not a party in the claim and there was no information regarding his whereabouts, is well established and it will cause an unnecessary delay in the adjudication of the suit if the documents are summoned. 19. This Court observes that the lease deed dated 22.06.1991 issued by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur, falls under the category of ‘public document’ as mentioned under Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and a public document can be proved through a certified copy as mentioned under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, therefore, it cannot be said to be a forged or a fake document. Thus, the learned court below was perfectly justified in allowing the certified copy of the lease deed issued by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur to be exhibited and proved as a secondary evidence. Photocopy of the license dated 15.05.1974 which was duly notarized, was issued in favour of Shri Ramchandra and his son Shri Murli Manohar, and the said document also falls under the category of secondary evidence as mentioned under Section 63(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 74(2) and Section 63(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are reproduced hereunder: “74. Public documents: The following documents are public documents: (1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts: (i) of the sovereign authority. (ii) of official bodies and tribunals. (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, 3[of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country. (2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents. 63. (ii) of official bodies and tribunals. (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, 3[of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country. (2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents. 63. Secondary evidence: Secondary evidence means and includes: (1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies. (3) copies made from or compared with the original. (4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them. (5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.” 20. The learned court below has also rightly observed that according to Section 65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when an original document is beyond the reach of the court, then, in such a situation, the photocopy of the said document, which is attested by the notary public, can be displayed and proved as a secondary evidence. Section 65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act is reproduced hereunder: “65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to document may be given: (a) When the original document is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it.” 21. In the present case at hand, since the original document can neither be easily summoned nor searched by the learned trial court, then, the photocopy of the original documents, attested by notary public, can be exhibited and proved as a secondary evidence by the respondents/plaintiffs. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds, that the original documents are in possession of a person named Manoharlal Paliwal, who is not a party in the dispute and whose address is not known to the respondents and also, there is no evidence on record so as to show that whether Manoharlal Paliwal has given the documents to any other person, or he has mortgaged it in a bank for obtaining loan. So, as the above-mentioned documents are beyond the reach of the Court, then, in such a situation, relying on certified copies of the original documents as a secondary evidence would be just and proper. Further, Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, lays down that the notice shall not be required in order to render secondary evidence admissible in case whether the person in possession of the documents is out of reach or not subject to the process of the court. Section 66 of the Indian Evidence is reproduced hereunder: “66. Rules as to notice to produce - Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in section 65, clause (a), shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is [or to his attorney or pleader] such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case: Provided that such notice shall not be required in order to render secondary evidence admissible in any of the following cases, or in any other case in which the Court thinks fit to dispense with it: (1) when the document to be proved is itself a notice. (2) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that he will be required to produce it. (3) when it appears or is proved that the adverse party has obtained possession of the original by fraud or force. (4) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in Court. (5) when the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of the document. (3) when it appears or is proved that the adverse party has obtained possession of the original by fraud or force. (4) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in Court. (5) when the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of the document. (6) when the person in possession of the document is out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court.” In the present case, undoubtedly, Manoharlal Paliwal with whom, the documents lie, is neither a party before the learned trial court, nor he can be said to be in reach of the learned trial court from whom such documents could be called for and thus, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents in dispute are not admissible in evidence, is not sustainable and thus, by allowing these documents to be produced in the form of secondary evidence will not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. 23. Thus, the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metro, does not call for any interference. 24. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed in the above terms. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand rejected.