ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties finally on merits of the writ petition and perused the material available on record. 2. Petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking direction against the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short 'RHB'), to execute a registered sale deed in his favour of the property Shop No. 7, situated at Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Petitioner has come up with a simpliciter case, pleading inter alia that the property in question has already been allotted to him by the RHB vide Allotment Letter No.3991 dated 03.06.1978 and in pursuance thereof, physical possession has also been handed over to him vide possession letter dated 14.08.1978. Petitioner has inter alia pleaded that he has been enjoying actual, physical and peaceful possession of the property in question since 14.08.1978 continuously, being a lawful allottee of same and no dues against such plot are outstanding against the petitioner, yet RHB has not executed the registered sale deed (conveyance deed)of the shop in question in favour of the petitioner. 4. It has further been inter alia pleaded by the petitioner that the sole reason due to which conveyance deed has not been executed and registered by the RHB, in favour of the petitioner for the shop in question, is that the original file of allotment of the shop in question, is not traceable in the Office of RHB. Such information was divulged by RHB vide its letter dated 22.11.2021 (Annx.2) to the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005. 5. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner is in possession of a photostat copy of the original possession letter dated 14.08.1978 (Annx.1) and other evidence as much as having lawful and valid possession of the shop in question with him, hence, relying upon such documents and other material evidence, RHB may execute the registered sale deed of the shop in question in his favour. 6. There is no other rival claimant to the petitioner and allotment and possession of petitioner has not been questioned by any one, including RHB. 6. There is no other rival claimant to the petitioner and allotment and possession of petitioner has not been questioned by any one, including RHB. Petitioner also served a legal notice dated 29.04.2023 (Annx.4) upon the concerned authorities of RHB, demanding to execute a registered sale deed, but same has been replied by RHB vide reply notice dated 07.06.2023 (Annx.5), expressing their inability to execute the registered sale deed fundamentally for want of availability of the original file in the Office of RHB.In the reply notice, there is a clear admission on behalf of respondents that the file of the shop in question is not traceable in the Office of RHB and a search slip dated 10.01.2022, to trace out the file was issued. Then a letter dated 22.02.2022 has also been written by RHB to the concerned SHO, Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur, for registering an FIR with regard to misplacement of the original file. A reference of issuing another search slip dated 05.04.2022 has also been given in the reply notice and it has been pleaded therein by RHB that soon after tracing out the original file, sale deed can be executed after verifying the allotment of the shop in question in favour of the petitioner and subject to deposition of the outstanding amount, if any. 7. RHB has filed reply to the writ petition as well, taking a similar plea as raised in its reply notice dated 07.06.2023 (Annx.5) and it has been stated inter alia therein that since the original file of shop in question in the Office of RHB is not traceable, hence, as and when the file will be found, then only conveyance deed can be executed in favour of the petitioner, after verification of the allotment of the shop in question in favour of the petitioner and subject to deposition of outstanding dues, if any. 8. It is noteworthy that RHB, in its reply to the writ petition has admitted the factum of actual and physical possession of the petitioner over the shop in question and has not questioned his lawful and valid possession over the shop in question, pursuant to the allotment of the same claimed by petitioner to be made in his favour and in furtherance to the possession letter dated 14.08.1978. Thus, the factum of having lawful and valid possession of the shop in question with the petitioner since 14.08.1978, in furtherance to the possession letter issued by RHB in his favour, is an admitted and undisputed fact. 9. Having adverted to the respective pleadings of both parties and documents placed on record, this Court finds that although RHB has not admitted in unequivocal terms about allotment of the shop in question in favour of the petitioner vide Allotment Letter No.3991 dated 03.06.1978, as claimed and pleaded by the petitioner nevertheless, same has not been denied. In addition, it is noteworthy that the photostat copy of possession letter dated 14.08.1978, placed on record by the petitioner along with the writ petition as Annexure-1, has also not been questioned rather RHB admits the fact that actual and physical possession of the shop in question is laying with the petitioner since 1978 in furtherance to such possession letter dated 14.08.1978. For ready reference, the portion of pleadings of RHB stated in its reply is being reproduced hereunder: "merely because petitioner is in possession of property in question does confer any valid title in his favour." 10. This Court finds that as far as factum of having lawful and valid possession of the shop in question with petitioner, that too in furtherance to the possession letter dated 14.08.1978, issued by the RHB in favour of petitioner is concerned, same appears to be an admitted and undisputed fact, however, the factum of issuance of allotment letter dated 03.06.1978 and allotment of shop in question in favour of petitioner is concerned, same is subject to verification/ proof with the original documents, though not denied. It is worthy to note as a relevant fact that no other third person has come forward before this Court, to claim allotment of shop in question as a rival claimant of same against the claim of petitioner. 11. This Court further finds that this is also an undisputed fact that the original file of allotment of the shop in question is not traceable in the Office of RHB, despite of issuance of search slips by RHB twice, i.e., first on 10.01.2022 and another one on 05.04.2022. 11. This Court further finds that this is also an undisputed fact that the original file of allotment of the shop in question is not traceable in the Office of RHB, despite of issuance of search slips by RHB twice, i.e., first on 10.01.2022 and another one on 05.04.2022. It has also been stated by RHB that a letter dated 22.02.2022 too was written by RHB to the concerned SHO, Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur, for registering an FIR in this regard, but file has not been traced as yet and due to such reason only, the claim of petitioner to get execute the sale deed is withheld. 12. At this juncture, it would be apropos to rely upon and refer Chapter V of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short, 'Adhiniyam, 2023') and more particularly provision of Section 56 of Adhiniyam, 2023, which stipulates that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. Section 57 deals with the primary evidence and Section 58 talks about the secondary evidence. Section 59 postulates that "Documents shall be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned." Section 60 prescribes the cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. The relevant portion of Section 58 (ii and v) and Section 60 (as a whole), are being reproduced hereunder: "58. Secondary evidence .- Secondary evidence includes— (ii) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies; (v) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it; 60. Secondary evidence .- Secondary evidence includes— (ii) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies; (v) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it; 60. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given .- Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases, namely: — (a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power— (i) of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved; (ii) of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court; or (iii) of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 64 such person does not produce it; (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74; (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Adhiniyam, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence; (g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. Explanation.—For the purposes of— (i) clauses (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible; (ii) clause (b), the written admission is admissible; (iii) clause (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible; (iv) clause (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such document." 13. In the opinion of this Court, on the factual matrix obtaining in the present case, if the original file of allotment of the shop in question is not traceable in the Office of RHB and petitioner is being deprived to make absolute his title over the shop in question only for this reason, petitioner has a remedy to prove the factum of allotment of the shop in question in his favour by adducing secondary evidence to this effect, within scope of Section 58 read with Section 60 of Adhiniyam, 2023. Petitioner is not remediless. At one hand, petitioner can claim declaration of his ownership over the shop in question, on the other hand, can also seek remedy to get execute the sale deed, relying upon the secondary evidence to establish allotment of shop in question in his favour. Petitioner cannot be deprived to make absolute his title over the shop in question, merely on account of non-availability of the original documents/ file in the Office of RHB, more so when the petitioner is in peaceful and long possession of the shop in question. Petitioner is in possession of authentic and acceptable evidence, documentary and oral, in the category of secondary evidence, which can be taken into consideration by RHB to establish the legal right of the petitioner to get the conveyance deed executed and registered in his favour. Thus, it is open for the petitioner to produce and rely upon the secondary evidence, for obtaining relief of execution of the registered sale deed of the shop in question by RHB in his favour or to make declaration of title in his favour. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that it would not just and proper nor is permissible in law for the parties to produce evidence, more particularly secondary evidence before the High Court in a writ jurisdiction, in order to establish his/ her civil and property rights over any immovable property. Rather the Civil Court is an appropriate forum of law where evidence more particularly secondary evidence can be produced by the party to establish his civil and property right and to seek relief for making absolute the ownership rights over the immovable property. 15. Rather the Civil Court is an appropriate forum of law where evidence more particularly secondary evidence can be produced by the party to establish his civil and property right and to seek relief for making absolute the ownership rights over the immovable property. 15. In the backdrop of factual matrix, obtaining in the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is open for the petitioner to approach before the Civil Court to establish his civil, legal and property right over the shop in question by producing secondary evidence to prove the factum of allotment of shop in question by RHB to him and to make his title absolute either by seeking declaration or establishing his entitlement to get the sale deed registered in his favour in pursuance thereof. 16. This Court deems it just and proper to observe that as far as actual and physical possession of the shop in question is concerned, the same is undisputedly lying with the petitioner, which shall obviously, will not be disturbed/ obstructed by the RHB until adjudication of the property rights of the petitioner over the shop in question by the Civil Court; hence, petitioner will continue to enjoy the peaceful and physical possession of the shop in question. 17. For the discussion and enunciation foregoing, this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, did not find it appropriate to issue directions to the RHB to execute the registered sale deed of the shop in question in favour of the petitioner, nevertheless keep it open for the petitioner to prove the factum of allotment of the shop in question by RHB, in his favour, by adducing secondary evidence and to make absolute his title. Petitioner is granted liberty to approach before the Civil Court. It has already been observed hereinabove, that since petitioner is in actual and physical possession of the shop in question since 14.08.1978, until adjudication of the ownership/ property right of the petitioner over the shop in question by the Civil Court, RHB shall not disturb/ obstruct the peaceful enjoyment of the possession of the shop in question by the petitioner. 18. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 19. Stay application or any other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.