Back
2000(5) Supreme 125
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand, CJI., R.C. Lahoti & N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Khemraj & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12050 of 1999)
Decided on 10-1-2000
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 under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to lead secondary evidence supported by a proper affidavit and giving full details necessary to attract the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
4. In the event such an application is filed within four weeks, the same shall be disposed of afresh on its own merits, by the learned trial Court uninfluenced by its earlier order dated 21.1.1997 or the order of the High Court dated 1.2.1999.
5. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(C.R.) Appeal disposed of accordingly.
*************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Khemraj & Ors., 2000(5) Supreme 125 : 2000 (2) JT 40 : 2000 (1) All. Crl. L.R.772 : 2000 ISJ (Banking) 424 : AIR 2000 SCC 1759
00023
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
