Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2278 (RAJ)

Anju Devi W/o Shri Ramswaroop v. Damodar W/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Jat

2017-10-30

DINESH MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. The petitioner has laid a challenge to an order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) whereby, the plaintiff's application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act has been allowed. 2. The apropos facts for the purpose of the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 preferred an Election Petition, laying challenge to the election of the petitioner as a Sarpanch, inter alia, contending that the petitioner is having more than two children on the cut-off date, i.e. 28.11.1995 The said assertion of the Plaintiff had been denied by the petitioner and even the averments regarding obtaining Ration Card and allegedly filed Application No. 371 before the Municipal Council, Merta City were disputed. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff submitted a certified copy of the aforesaid Application No. 371, said to have been submitted before the Municipal Council, Merta by the petitioner. The plaintiff also submitted application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, which was opposed by the petitioner. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff submitted a certified copy of the aforesaid Application No. 371, said to have been submitted before the Municipal Council, Merta by the petitioner. The plaintiff also submitted application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, which was opposed by the petitioner. The learned Trial Court, however, vide its order dated 13.10.2017 has allowed the same, while observing as under:- ^^mHk; i{kdkjku }kjk izLrqr rF;ksa rdksZ ij euu fd;k x;kA i=koyh ,oa lacaf/kr fof/k dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u fd;k x;k rFkk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar dk Hkh llEeku voyksdu dj ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;k x;kA ;kfpdkdRrkZ ds }kjk ftl nLrkost dks f}rh;d lk{; ds :i esa is'k djus dh vuqefr pkgh gS og jk'ku dkMZ cukus gsrq vkosnu i= dh izfr gS ftls vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh uxjikfydk esM+rkflVh ds }kjk izekf.kr fd;k x;k gSA tgka rd vf/koDrk v;kph ds }kjk yh xbZ ;g vkifRr ds fof/kd izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZ gS] ekU; ugha gS] D;ksafd /kkjk 65 Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj fdlh nLrkost dk f}rh;d lk{; rc Hkh fn;k tk ldrk gS tc og /kkjk 74 ds vUrxZr ,d yksd nLrkost gksA ftldh izekf.kr izfrfyfi xzkg; gS vkSj blh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 74 ds rgr yksd nLrkost dk;Zikyd] yksd vQljksa ds] 'kkldh; fudk;ksa o vf/kdj.kksa ds dk;ksZ ds vfHkys[k Hkh gksrs gSaA mDr vuqlkj pawfd jk'ku dkMZ cukus dk vkosnu i= Hkh uxjikfydk fudk; ds vfHkys[k dk Hkkx gS ftlls mldk yksd nLrkost gksuk vkSj mldh izekf.kr izfrfyfi dks lk{; esa fy;s tkus ls v;kfpdkdRrkZ dks fdlh Hkh izdkj dk iwokZxzg dkfjr gksus dh dksbZ laHkkouk ugha gSA blh izdkj ;kfpdkdRrkZ ds }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa izfrikfnr vfHker dh ^^izfroknhx.k }kjk nLrkost dk vfLrRo vLohdkj ugha fd;k x;k vly dh QksVksizfr;ka is'k gqbZ ftUgsa Lohdkj fd;k x;kA** mDr vfHker ds izfr Hkh U;k;ky; iw.kZr;k vknj O;Dr djrk gS rFkk gLrxr izdj.k esa Hkh v;kph us mlds }kjk izLrqr izFke izkFkZuk i= va /kkjk 63 Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e esa dgha ij Hkh bl rF; dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k Fkk fd izLrqr izekf.kr izfrfyfi QthZ gksA ftlls Li"V gS fd mlus ijks{k :i ls bl nLrkost dk vfLrRo Lohdkj fd;k gS ,sls esa rFkk mijksDr foospu ls izLrqr izekf.kr izfr dks f}rh;d lk{; ds :i esa xzkg~; fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS lkFk gh ;kfpdkdRrkZ us vius izkŒi= ds leFkZu esa 'kiFk i= is'k dj fn;k gSA rn~uqlkj ;kfpdkdRrkZ dk izkFkZuk i= va /kkjk 65 Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh lk{; lwph esa fu;r gSA ;kfpdkdRrkZ ds xokgksa ds mifLFkr vkus ij v;kph muls vko';d :i ls ftjg djsA lkFk gh izkŒi= ;w@vks 7 vkj 14¼3½ lhŒihŒlhŒ dk tokc Hkh v;kph is'k djsaA i=koyh lk{; ;kph esa@tokc o cgl mDr izkŒi= esa fnukad 26-10-2017 dks is'k gksA** 4. Mr. G.R Punia, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Rajendra Prasad, assailing the order dated 13.10.2017 submitted that it may be true that the document, i.e. application No. 371, certified copy whereof has been placed in the record of the learned Trial Court, is a public document; however, until and unless, the mandate of Section 66 of the Evidence Act is complied with, by issuing a notice, the same cannot be taken on record. Mr. Punia submitted that if despite petitioner's assertion that no such application has been submitted by her; the document in question, which is apparently forged, is taken on record, it would prejudicially affect the rights of the petitioner and would take away her right to question its genuineness otherwise. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. In considered opinion of this Court, no error of law has been committed by the learned Trial Court in allowing plaintiff's application dated 25.09.2017 filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The document in question is admittedly a public document, secondary evidence whereof can be led. 7. The contention of Mr. G.R Punia, that before taking the certified copy of the contentious document, i.e. the application allegedly submitted by the petitioner, the requirements of Section 66 of the Evidence Act, 1872, i.e. serving a notice was mandatory is unsustainable in law. It is noteworthy that the provisions contained in Section 66 of the Evidence Act are applicable in cases falling under Clause (a) of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872, however, the subject document, Application No. 371, does not fall within the ambit of Section 65(a), and as such, there is no requirement of complying with the provisions of Section 66 of the Evidence Act. 8. This Court does not find any illegality in the order under challenge passed by the learned Trial Court. 9. Needless to observe that merely “letting-in” the certified copy of the document in question would not be a conclusive proof of the said application having been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner-defendant, a returned candidate, shall have all her rights reserved to assert that the said application has neither been filed by her nor signed by her or on her behalf. The Trial Court shall decide the petitioner's objection in this regard, in accordance with law. 10. Petition dismissed.