Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1475 (RAJ)

Suleman v. Nirmal Kumar

2017-07-04

DINESH MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT 1. Looking to the controversy involved in the case, the service of notice upon respondents No. 3 and 4 who are formal to the present lis, is dispensed with. 2. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana, District Nagaur whereby an application dated 28.11.2016 has been rejected by the learned trial Court while observing as under. ^i=koyh ij ;kph dh vksj ls izLrqr nLrkostkr dk ;fn ge 3. Mr. Bhaiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the contentious documents submitted by the plaintiff are not admissible in evidence as most of them are copies obtained under Right to Information Act and thus cannot be admitted in evidence; order impugned is non speaking as the petitioner's contentions have not been dealt with in the true spirit; and that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application treating it to be filed with a view to delay the Court proceedings. 4. On the other hand, Mr. L.S. Jodha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the documents obtained under Right to Information Act are admissible in evidence and are akin to certified copies. 5. Mr. Jodha submitted that the plaintiff had submitted total 31 documents out of which dispute relates to only 10 documents, while referring to a list of contentious documents, reproduced herein under :- Sr. No. Exhibit No. Description/ Detail of the Document 01 Exhibit -08 Nomination form of the petitioner. 02 Exhibit -09 Self declaration by the petitioner. 03 Exhibit -10 Undertaking by the petitioner in respect of working clean toilet. 04 Exhibit -11 Identity card of the petitioner issued by the Election Commission of India. 05 Exhibit -12 Birth Certificate of the Petitioner. 06 Exhibit -13 Class 8th Mark Sheet of the petitioner. 07 Exhibit -14 Order bearing No. P.3 (8) Edu.-6/2001 issued by the State Government. 08 Exhibit -15 Aadhar Card of the petitioner issued by Unique Identification Authority of India. 09 Exhibit -16 Receipt of Education Tax in the name of the petitioner. 10 Exhibit -17 No-dues certificate issued in the name of the petitioner. 6. 07 Exhibit -14 Order bearing No. P.3 (8) Edu.-6/2001 issued by the State Government. 08 Exhibit -15 Aadhar Card of the petitioner issued by Unique Identification Authority of India. 09 Exhibit -16 Receipt of Education Tax in the name of the petitioner. 10 Exhibit -17 No-dues certificate issued in the name of the petitioner. 6. Without joining the issue on merit and to cut-short the controversy, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaintiff has later on obtained certified copies of the documents mentioned at S.No.1 to S.No.3, being Exhibit-8, Exhibit-9 and Exhibit-10. As far as the other documents mentioned at S.No.4, S.No.5, S.No.6, S.No.8, S.No.9 and S.No.10, being Exhibit-11, Exhibit-12, Exhibit-13, Exhibit-15, Exhibit-16 and Exhibit-17, Mr. L.S. Jodha submits that he would follow the procedure provided under Section 65, 66 and other provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, and the Code of Civil Procedure, for summoning the original documents from the petitioner/defendant or any other authority in accordance of law. However, qua the document mentioned at S.No.7 being Exhibit-14, (the Order No.P.3(8) Edu.-6/2001 issued by the State Government) he abandons his right of reliance and leading the evidence. 7. A bare look at the order impugned dated 08.12.2016, leaves no room for doubt that the learned trial Court has passed the order in a slip-shod manner, without even noticing, much less dealing with the grounds and contentions raised by the rival parties. The order impugned dated 08.12.2016 deserves to be set aside and hence, set aside. 8. However, the plaintiff will be permitted to file certified copies of the document Exhibit-8, Exhibit-9 and Exhibit-10 and will be free to take appropriate proceedings for leading secondary evidence/ or summoning relevant record from defendant or any other authority in accordance of law, as noticed above. 9. With these observation, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 08.12.2016 is set aside, with respect to taking on record, the above mentioned 10 documents only. Other undisputed documents shall remain on record.