An application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act seeking permission to lead secondary evidence must be supported by an affidavit, and the averments therein must provide full details necessary to attract the provisions of Section 65; vague averments render the application deficient. (!) (!) Where an application for permission to lead secondary evidence lacks an affidavit and contains vague averments, the trial court is justified in rejecting it. (!) A higher court may decline to interfere with a trial court's rejection of such a deficient application. (!) In the interest of justice, a party may be permitted to file a fresh application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, supported by a proper affidavit and containing necessary details, which the trial court shall consider afresh on merits, uninfluenced by prior orders. (!) (!)

State Of Rajasthan vs Khemraj - 2000 Supreme(SC) 63

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000 Supreme(SC) 63

A. S. ANAND, N. S. HEGDE, R. C. LAHOTI
State Of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Khemraj – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

An application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act seeking permission to lead secondary evidence must be supported by an affidavit, and the averments therein must provide full details necessary to attract the provisions of Section 65; vague averments render the application deficient. (!) (!)
Where an application for permission to lead secondary evidence lacks an affidavit and contains vague averments, the trial court is justified in rejecting it. (!)
A higher court may decline to interfere with a trial court's rejection of such a deficient application. (!)
In the interest of justice, a party may be permitted to file a fresh application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, supported by a proper affidavit and containing necessary details, which the trial court shall consider afresh on merits, uninfluenced by prior orders. (!) (!)

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Though this case has a chequered history, but at this stage we are only concerned with an order made by the trial Court on 21st January, 1997 on an application filed by the appellants under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to produce secondary evidence in respect of a map, the attested copy of which had been filed with that application. The learned trial Court recorded that the application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was not supported by any affidavit and also that the averments contained in the application were vague. It was on account of these deficiencies that the learned trial Court rejected the application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The High Court, in revision, did not interfere with the order of the trial Court on 1.2.1999. Hence, the appeal by special leave.

3. In the face of the pleadings of the appellants and the defects noticed by the trial Court, no fault can be found with the orders of the trial Court or of the High Court. However, it appears appropriate to us, in the interest of justice, to permit the appellant to file a fresh application in the trial Court for seeking permission

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 63

A. S. ANAND, N. S. HEGDE, R. C. LAHOTIState Of Rajasthan – AppellantVersusKhemraj – Respondent

A. S. ANAND, N. S. HEGDE, R. C. LAHOTI
State Of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Khemraj – Respondent