Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 3055
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Lrs of Fateh Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1763 of 2022
Decided On : 25-02-2022
Mr. B. S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG assisted by Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Revenue Courts have the authority to summon documents from Judicial Courts under the provisions of the CPC as per the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Revenue Court - Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Sections 5(35), 208 - The court interpreted the applicability of CPC provisions to Revenue Courts, affirming their authority to summon documents from Judicial Courts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a communication from the Judicial Court refusing to send an original will to the Revenue Court, which was necessary for a witness to identify his signature during a tenancy rights suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Revenue Court is a court under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and can exercise powers under the CPC, including summoning documents from other courts.
Issues: Whether the Revenue Court can summon the original will under Order XIII Rule 10 of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Revenue Court, being a court under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, can exercise powers similar to those of Civil Courts, including summoning documents from Judicial Courts.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, quashing the Judicial Court's refusal to send the original will to the Revenue Court.
ORDER
1. By way of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 11.10.2021 sent by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mount Abu (hereinafter referred to as the 'Judicial Court') to learned Sub Divisional Officer, Mount Abu (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revenue Court') whereby the precept dated 13.09.2021 for summoning the original will dated 02.01.1982 has been turned down inter alia stating that the concerned Revenue Court has not cited any provision of law under which the original will can be sent to the Revenue Court.
2. Precisely stated, facts germane to the present writ petition are that one Narendra Singh Bhati had instituted a suit for declaration of his tenancy rights on the basis of a will, while impleading Fateh Singh father of the present petitioner No.1/1 as a respondent.
3. During the suit proceedings, one witness - Praveen Chand Shah appeared in the witness box and deposed that he will be in position to identify his signature as witness in case the original will dated 02.01.1982 executed by Smt. Alis Diana Wordsworth is placed before him.
4. Hence, the present petitioners (defendants) moved an application under Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that the original will, which is lying in the Judicial Court in relation to Criminal Case No.1331/2013 be summoned.
5. Pursuant to petitioner's application, the Revenue Court sent a precept dated 13.09.2021 and requested the Judicial Court to send the original will for the purpose of examination/cross-examination in the case pending before it.
6. The Judicial Court vide its communication dated 11.10.2021 refused to send the original will, inter alia observing that there is no statutory provision for sending the original will to Revenue Court. It was also observed that the parties can obtain a certified copy of the will and may do the needful, while observing that certified copy is admissible in evidence.
7. Mr. B. S. Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the above referred communication dated 11.10.2021 argued that the Sub Divisional Officer, Mount Abu (Revenue Court) is also a Court within the meaning of Section 5 (35) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1955') and further submitted that in terms of Section 208 of the Act of 1955 all the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to such Courts. He clarified that Order XIII Rule 10 of the CPC has not been placed under the exceptions carved out in Section 208 and thus, the provisions of Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code are equally applicable to Revenue Court and thus, the Revenue Court can exercise all the powers which are vested in Civil Courts/Judicial Courts, including the power to summon relevant documents from another Court.
8. Mr. Benilwal, learned Additional Advocate General though could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law, however, submitted that the petitioner can obtain a certified copy of the will from the concerned Court and produce the same before the Revenue Court for the purpose of completion of evidence.
9. Heard.
10. Upon perusal of the cross-examination of Mr. Praveen Chandra Shah (aged 83 years), this Court finds that said witness, in no ambiguous terms, had expressed that he would be able to identify his signature only when original will is placed before him.
11. Indisputably, a certified copy of the will was already there before the said witness when he testified on 13.09.2021 and yet showed his inability to identify his own signature and requested the original will.
12. Hence, this Court is of the view that the original will is necessary for the purpose of completion of evidence of said witness - Praveen Chandra Shah.
13. Adverting to the fact as to whether the Revenue Court can exercise power under Order XIII Rule 10 of CPC, this Court is of the view that the Revenue Court is also a Court within the meaning of Section 5 (35) of the Act of 1955 a
