2000 Supreme(Raj) 1490
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.P.Gupta, J.
Sohan Lal - Appellant
Versus
Mahavir Kumar Gangwal and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1526 of 1999.
Decided On : 9-11-2000
The trial court has discretion to draw any presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act after receiving the original documents.
Headnote:
Presumption - Evidence Act - The court declined the request for drawing presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act as the original documents were not before the court at the time of the order. The trial court has discretion to draw any presumption with respect to the documents after receiving the original documents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's application under Order 13 Rule 10 was allowed, but the request for drawing presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act was declined as the original documents were not before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court has discretion to draw any presumption with respect to the documents after receiving the original documents.
Issues: The issue was whether the court should draw a presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act when the original documents were not before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court can decide whether to raise a presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act after receiving the original documents.
Final Decision: The revision was disposed of, and the trial court was directed to expeditiously decide the main suit.
JUDGMENT
1. - By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner filed under Order 13 Rule 10 had already been allowed and the original of the documents, certified copies whereof are on record have already been requisitioned.
2. By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner for dispensing with the formal proof of the document has been dismissed and thereby the request for drawing presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act has been declined. Suffice it to say that at the time of passing of the order, the original documents were not before the court with respect to which the court could exercise its discretion as to whether a presumption under Section 90 is attracted or not, or is required to be drawn or not.
3. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners submits that discretion lies with in trial court to draw any presumption with respect to the documents or not, inasmuch as the provision of Section 90 are only the rules of Evidence, and at the time of final hearing, the court is to apply its mind as to whether the presumption under Section 90 is to be invoked or not with respect to particular document.
4. In my view, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners is also right. Consequently, it is made clear that after the original documents are received by the trial court pursuant to the impugned order, it will be open to the petitioner, if the petitioner so likes, to lead evidence, to prove the documents, and if the petitioner does not stand advised to lead evidence, then at the time of final hearing, the learned trial court shall be free to apply its mind as to whether the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act is to be raised or not with respect to these documents. In doing so, the impugned order will not come in the way of learned trial court. Since the suit of the year 1994, the learned trial court is directed to expeditiously decide the main suit itself.The revision is accordingly disposed of.Revision Disposed of.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
