ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. The petitioners/plaintiffs, aggrieved by order dated 21.05.2024 (Annex.14) passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara (‘Trial Court’), have preferred the instant writ petition, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners/ plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 14 CPC has been partly accepted to the extent of keeping the documents on record, however, the prayer made by the petitioners to form a part of evidence, has been rejected. 2. The facts apposite for the purposes of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant. On being served with the summon of the suit, the respondent/defendant filed his written statement stating therein that the suit property came into his share and possession in view of family settlement arrived at amongst the family members. The issues were thereafter framed on 05.01.2006. 3. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application (Annex.7) under Order VI Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to take certain documents on record viz. certified copies of the three sale-deeds dated 19.04.205, 27.07.1989 and 15.01.1987 pertaining to land of Aaraji Nos.771, 772 and 778, 773 and 3477 of village Bemali. Along with application, the petitioners sought to produce photostat copy of meter card of Electricity Board and rent receipts dated 04.07.1979 containing signatures of Chain Sukh Bohra, as owner. 4. The aforesaid application (Annex.7) was replied by the respondent/defendant on 17.05.2024 (Annex.13) stating therein that the sale-deeds, sought to be brought on record, have no relation to the lis and, therefore, a prayer was made for rejection of the application. 5. The learned Trial Court thereafter heard arguments on the application and vide order dated 21.05.2024 (Annex.14) proceeded to accept the application to the extent of keeping the certain documents on record, however, rejected the application to form a part of evidence. Aggrieved by order impugned to the extent it refuses to take on record the sale-deeds and holding the documents, which have been taken on record, not admissible in evidence, the petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred the instant writ petition. 6. Aggrieved by order impugned to the extent it refuses to take on record the sale-deeds and holding the documents, which have been taken on record, not admissible in evidence, the petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred the instant writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that while passing the order impugned, the learned Trial Court has not assigned any valid reason as to why the documents shall not be admitted in evidence, though the documents after being found to be worth taking on record, the documents ought to have been admitted and allowed in evidence and while not doing so, the learned Trial Court has seriously erred. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Trial Court has admitted in evidence the photostat copy of document dated 06.09.1977 produced by the respondent vide order dated 14.09.2006, however, on the other hand documents submitted by the petitioners have been refused to be taken on record on ipse dixit ground of it being a photostat copy and not the original or certified copy, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners/plaintiffs and the petitioners/plaintiffs have been deprived of from securing justice. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that earlier counsel, who was appearing on behalf of petitioners/plaintiffs, unfortunately expired and, therefore, the relevant documents could not be produced and exhibited and it was only when the plaintiffs engaged another counsel, the application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC was filed with a prayer to take the photostat copies of documents on record, inasmuch as the original documents were either with the earlier counsel, who expired or the documents have been misplaced. Thus, the documents in question were liable to be admitted in evidence and this aspect has not at all been considered by the learned Trial Court. 8. Thus, the documents in question were liable to be admitted in evidence and this aspect has not at all been considered by the learned Trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the photostat copies of the documents can be admitted in evidence, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court in the same matter had earlier allowed an application preferred by the respondent under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for admitting the photostat copy of partition deed dated 06.09.1977 vide order dated 14.09.2006, however, while deciding the application vide the order impugned, the learned Trial Court despite taking certain documents on record, has erred in not admitting the documents in evidence, which observation of the learned Trial Court deserves to be modified. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court has also erred in holding that the copies of the sale- deeds sought to be taken on record are not related to the subject to the suit proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sale-deeds were executed qua the land covered by these sale deeds, which were coming in the share of petitioners’ husband and father, however, the said sale-deeds were executed by respondent- Amar Chand, which disproves the contents of the document dated 06.09.1977 i.e. the alleged partition deed. Thus, the copies of sale-deeds refused to be taken on record are germane for deciding the dispute, however, the learned Trial Court has not considered this aspect of the matter. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that without giving any opportunity to lead secondary evidence, the learned Trial Court has after taking two out of thee documents on record, has refused to admit them in evidence, which observation of the learned Trial Court is in utter violation of the law. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the documents are not taken on record, the same would be detrimental to the interest of the petitioners’ right and they will be deprived of justice. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court has accepted the documents for inclusion in the record, however, has refused to admit them as part of evidence. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court has accepted the documents for inclusion in the record, however, has refused to admit them as part of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the documents to be admissible in evidence, else the petitioners will not be even be able to move an application for leading secondary evidence and if such application is moved, the observations made by learned Trial Court will come in the way. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent/defendant opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and submits that the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. 13. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. This Court finds that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, the learned Trial Court has observed that the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking partition of the suit property, i.e. Plot No.30 situated in Cotton Factory Area, where two shops and other construction was raised. In the suit, no partition of other properties except Plot No.30 was sought by the plaintiffs, therefore, the copies of the sale-deeds with respect to properties other than the subject matter of the suit, were not germane and relevant for decision of the suit. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties, this Court concurs with the said observation made by learned Trial Court whereby it has refused to take the copies of the sale-deeds on record. Therefore, the order impugned refusing to take the sale-deeds on record, requires no interference and the same is accordingly upheld to that extent. 15. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties, this Court concurs with the said observation made by learned Trial Court whereby it has refused to take the copies of the sale-deeds on record. Therefore, the order impugned refusing to take the sale-deeds on record, requires no interference and the same is accordingly upheld to that extent. 15. The learned Trial Court after considering the arguments advanced by the parties while partly allowing the application observed as under: ^^--blds i'pkr~ ;fn oknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr vU; nlrkost esa fdjk;k fpV~Vh ,oa jktLFkku LVsV bysDV?hflVh cksMZ ds ehVj dkMZ dh izfr dk voyksdu djs rks izrhr gksrk gS fd ;g fookfnr Hkw[k.M esa fufeZr nqdkuksa ls laca/kh j[krh gSA gkykafd ;g nLrkost izekf.kr izfr ,oa ewy ugha gSA bUgs vfHkys[k ij fy;k tk ldrk gS fdUrq bu nLrkost dks lk{; esa xzkg~; rHkh fd;k tk ldrk gS tc mDr nLrkost izekf.kr izfrfyfi vFkok ewy gks fdUrq vkns'k 7 fu;e 14 fl-iz-la- ds izkFkZuk i= ds fuLrkj.k ds le; U;k;ky; dks budh lk{; eas xzkg~;rk ds fcUnqvksa dk fuLrkj.k ugha djuk gS] dsoyek= ;g ns[kuk gS fd mDr nLrkost okn dh fo"k;oLrq ls laca/k j[krs gS vFkok ughaA mDr nksuks nLrkostkr okn dh fo"k;oLrq ls laca/k j[krs gSA** 16. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court, in the earlier part of its order though has specifically observed that admissibility of the documents taken on record cannot be considered or decided while deciding the application under VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, however, in the operative portion the learned Trial Court has observed that since the documents taken on record are not certified by competent authority and are not original, therefore, the documents are not admissible in evidence and partly allowed the application to the extent that they documents are taken on record and liberty has also been given to the respondent/defendant to lead rebuttal evidence. The operative portion of the order impugned reads as under: ^^;gka ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr nLrkosr dsoy ek= vfHkys[k ij fy;s x;s gS] pwafd mDr nLrkost fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh ls izekf.kr ,oa ewy ugha gS ,sls esa bUgs lk{; esa xzkg~; ugh fd;k tk;sxk] dsoy ek= bUgs vfHkys[k ij j[kus dh gn rd mDr izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA mDr nLrkost ds [k.Mu esa izfroknh ;fn dksbZ nLrkost is'k djuk pkgrk gS rks og blds fy, Lora= gSA ,rn~}kjk mDr izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA** 17. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the observations made by the learned Trial Court that the documents are not admissible in evidence, as they are not certified by any competent authority and not original, would prejudice the case of the petitioner, in case they file an application under 65 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the observation made by the learned Trial Court in respect to the non- admissibility of the documents, which have been taken on record, is quashed and set aside. Needless to say that the petitioners/plaintiffs would be at liberty to file appropriate application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act for getting decided the admissibility of the documents in evidence, which application shall be decided by the learned Trial Court on merits. 18. With the observations and directions, the writ petition stands partly allowed. The order impugned dated 21.05.2024 passed by learned Trial Court stands modified accordingly. Stay Petition stands disposed. No costs.