Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 388 (RAJ)

Poonam Sharma v. Dinesh Kumar

2024-03-01

AVNEESH JHINGAN

body2024
ORDER : Avneesh Jhingan, J. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 04.11.2023 whereby, the application for producing secondary evidence filed by defendant-respondent was allowed. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the application was filed by the defendant for bringing on record the Bahikhatas of Pandas in Haridwar (the ledgers maintained by Pandits in Haridwar recording the details of the person who had come after the death of the relative). The application was allowed on 04.11.2023 and the photostat copies of Bahikhatas were permitted to be taken on record. Hence the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant claims to be adopted by the mother of the petitioner and relies upon an adoption deed. The contention is that the defendant was 45 years of age when the adoption deed was executed. It is further argued that the Bahikhatas are movable and could have been produced in original. 4. Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with cases in which secondary evidence relating to the documents can be produced. It would be relevant to produce Section 65(d) of the Evidence Act. Section 65 Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given "Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases- xxxxxxxxxx (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;" 5. As per Clause (d), a document can be given as secondary evidence when the original is of such a nature that is not easily movable. 6. The Bahikhatas maintained by Pandas are not handed over to other persons thereby are not easily movable. The defendant had given the name, address and phone numbers and the relevant details of the Panda. The veracity of the contents and the evidentiary value of the document produced is not a subject matter at this stage. 7. The Civil Court has rightly observed that the petitioner shall have right to challenge the contents and evidentiary value at an appropriate stage. Petitioner shall be entitled to produce an evidence to counter the secondary evidence produced. 8. There is no factual or legal error in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.