Honble SHARMA, J. – In both the revisions, question of admissibility of photostat copy of a rent note is involved, as such both are being decided by a common order.

(2) Revision No. 235 of 1992 arises from the order dated 16.11.1991 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 5 Jaipur City in Civil Suit No. 16/85 whereby applica- tion of the petitioner filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for permission to lead in evidence the photostat copy of rent note, was rejected.

(3). Revision No. 866 of 1993 arises from the order dated 24.7.93 of the Additional Civil Judge No. 6 Jaipur City, in Civil Suit No. 57 of 1988 whereby the application for leading in evidence the photostat copy of the rent note under Sec- tion 65 of the Evidence, was dismissed.

(4). FACTUAL MATRIX :

(i) Civil Suit No. 16/85 for eviction was instituted by the petitioner against Gulab Rai, with regard to a shop. In the plaint it was contended that Gulab Rai had taken the shop on rent from the husband of the petitioner, late Shri Rajendra Kishore Sharma and Anand Kishore Sharma, who were the joint owners of the said shop. A rent note was executed on 16.4.1980 by the tenant Gulab Rai which was in the possession of Anand K

Click Here to Read the rest of this document