BSB, J C.R.P.No.3113 of 2023 therein was entitled to evict the petitioner before expiry of 33 years as agreed upon under the unregistered lease deed, dated 01.05.1975 ?.” Thus, the material in O.S.No.427 of 1984 is totally extraneous to the issue in the suit laid by the 1st respondent against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the entire pleadings in the above suit are required, but the petitioner sought only written statement. The petitioner made vague and nebulous statement that the earlier pleading of this respondent is contrast with the pleadings in this suit. The petitioner further did not explain why the certified copies would not serve the purpose. In cases like tampering of documents, forgery etc., and under special circumstances, originals of the documents already exhibited and filed in other suits may be necessary, but in this case, no such special reasons and circumstances were spelt out by the petitioner. Moreover, this respondent consented for marking of certified copies of judgment, plaint, written statement etc., and other documents in O.S.No.427 of 1984. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
