Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 91 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar Gupta v. Rajasthan Sarkar

2020-01-08

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2020
ORDER Prakash Gupta, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 65 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed an inter pleader suit under Section 88 CPC. Summons were issued. The defendants put in appearance and filed the written statement. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.10.2019. Hence, the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that existence and contents of the documents are not in dispute and thus, the application filed by the plaintiff deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set-aside. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. From perusal of the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 65 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC it transpires that the plaintiff sought permission to lead secondary evidence with regard to certain documents, which are public documents. The said documents being public documents, certified copies thereof could have been obtained by the plaintiff and could be produced before the Trial Court, but this has not been done. 7. The Trial Court while dismissing the said application observed that neither any effort was made by the plaintiff for obtaining the certified copy of the said documents nor was it mentioned in the application that the originals thereof were lost or destroyed nor was it mentioned as to how the plaintiff obtained the photostat copies of the documents in question. 8. The findings arrived at by the Trial Court in its order dated 24.10.2019 are just and proper. 9. There is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. The petition hereby fails and the same is dismissed.