Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 93 (RAJ)

Shobha v. Dharmendra Kumar

2005-01-11

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 01.04.2003 by which the trial Court rejected the petitioners application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. 3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court has committed serious error of jurisdiction in rejecting the application. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the reasons given by the trial Court are nothing but amount to giving a decision on the document itself . 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the document sought to be produced by the petitioner is forged one and further submits that the report which is sought to be proved cannot be relied upon as it cannot be relied upon because the report is evidencing against the human conduct. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. 6. It appears from the reasons given in the order dated 01.04.2003 that the Court below ignored the material fact that the document was relevant and non-mentioning of the registration number in the document may have some bearing on the credibility of the document but despite this fact, the document could not have been brushed aside only on this ground and the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to explain the reason for not having registration number on the document. So far as the contention of the respondent that the document is forged one and document cannot be relied upon is concerned, the same cannot be just and sufficient ground looking to the facts and circumstances of the case for rejection of evidence. Therefore, opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to prove the document which is alleged by the petitioner to be in possession of the respondent. Since, the document is relevant to decide a crucial point involved in the matter before the trial Court, the credibility of the document should have been judged after the evidence of the parties. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the order dated 01.04.2003 is set aside and the application of the petitioner under Section 65 of the Evidence Act is allowed.