Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 994 (RAJ)

Mana Ram v. LR’s of Late Hari Ram

2014-04-23

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.4.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Dist. Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar Civil Suit No. 88/2007 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff petition under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for taking the copy of the alleged agreement dated 2.11.1999 on record was rejected. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court was not justified in going into the correctness of the document at the stage when the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was being considered. Thus, he urges that the impugned order is absolutely illegal and perverse and thus should be quashed. 3. Per contra Mr. Kotwani, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted the Trial Court whilst considering the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the document and thereafter only the document can be permitted to be tendered as secondary evidence. He relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Yashoda v. Smt. K Shobharani reported in 2007(2) WLC 253 and Hariom Agarwal v. Prakash Chand Malviya reported in AIR 2008 SC 166 . 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order and gone through the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent. 5. It is evident that the document which was sought to be tendered by way of secondary evidence by itself was doubtful. The stamp on which the document was executed was purchased in the year 1996 whereas the document was allegedly drafted in the year 1999. The document i.e., the compromise was also insufficiently stamped. Thus in the light of the law as propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hariom Agrawal v. Prakash Chand Malviya (supra), a photo state copy of the document which itself was insufficiently stamped cannot be admitted as secondary evidence. 6. Resultantly, the order dated 8.4.2013 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity so as to call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.The writ petition being devoid of any merit is rejected.Petition dismissed. *******