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 Kishore Sharma. Tenant Gulab Rai admitted the execution of the rent note. The original rent note had been in the possession of Anand Kishore Sharma and photostat copy of the same was kept by the husband of the petitioner. Since a dispute was raised about the tenancy the petitioner wanted to prove the rent note, as original rent note was not in possession of the petitioner so she has filed an application under section 65 of the Evidence Act, after serving a notice to produce the original rent note. It was contended that tenant Gulab Rai himself had filed an affidavit Ex.1/1 in which he admitted that he had executed a rent note on 16.4.1980 in favour of Rajendra Kishore and Anand Kishore and the original rent note was with Anand Kishore. He had given the photostat copy of the rent note to the petitioner.

(ii) When the petitioner intended to exhibit photostat copy of the rent note on 16.4.1980, the trial court declined to mark exhibit on the photostat copy of the rent note on the ground that photostat copy of a document cannot be substituted by way of secondary evidence. The order dated 16.11.1991 has been assailed by the petitioner in revision petition No. 235/92.

(iii) Civil Suit No. 57 of 1988 was instituted by the petitioner for permanent injunction against Ambesedar Drycliners with regard to the property in dispute in which the above contained facts were plea- ded. In that case the petitioner submitted application under Section 65(a) and 2(b) of the Evidence Act for exhibiting the photostat copy of the rent note dated 16.4.1980 by leading it as secondary evidence. In the application it was contended that the defendant, non-petitioner Gulab Rai admitted execution of the rent note in his affidavit, in tem- porary injunction application No. 823/1984. The trial court vide order dated 24.7.1993, dismissed the application on the ground that it was not a compared photostat copy. The said order has been assailed in revision petition No. 866/93.

(5). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned orders as well as the relevant record. Tenant Gulab Rai had filed an affidavit on 9.11.1984 in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Jaipur City, Jaipur in which he admitted that he executed rent note on 16.4.1980 in favour of the land lord Rajendra Kishore Sharma and Anand Kishore Sharma and he handed over the original rent note to Anand Kishore Sharma. He received photostat copy of the rent note from Anand Kishore Sharma which was handed over to the plaintiff petitioner. This affidavit had been marked as Ex. 1. In the said case an application was filed by the plaintiff petitioner on 9.11.1994 for directing Anand Kishore defendant No.3 to produce original rent note in the court, but Anand Kishore did not prod

Click Here to Read the rest of this document