Honble ASOPA, J.–By the instant with petition the petitioners-plaintiffs seek to challenge the order dated 13.5.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Shahpura (Jaipur) whereby their application for leading secondary evidence as per Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected.

(2). Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in respect of the plot of land situated in Manoharpur, District Jaipur delineated in read colour in the map annexed to the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs is that they and their predecessors owned and possessed the plot in dispute since 1929 but when the defendants attempted to make encroachment over the plot in question, to carry out some construction thereon and further collusively obtained allotment letter from the Municipal Board, Manoharpur in respect of the plot in question, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration and cancellation of the alleged allotment letter issued by the Municipal Board, Manoharpur and sought restrain order by way of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the plot in dispute.

(3). The defendants filed written statement wherein they have denied the averments of the plaint, claiming their right, title and interest over the plot in dispute. They have further claimed their possession. The trial Court framed issues and posted the suit for evidence of the plaintiffs.

(4). The plaintiffs filed documents in support of their case and one of the document was writing of Samvat year 1986 corresponding to English Calender year 1929 whereby the predecessor of the plaintiffs-petitioners purchased the land from erstwhile owner for valuable consideration. The plaintiffs further averred that when the original document was lost while travelling from Shahpura to Jaipur, a paper publication was made on 9.3.2003 and the same has not been traced out so far. Therefore, they have filed the photocopy of the same duly attested by Notary Public.

(5). The plaintiffs filed an application under Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC for leading secondary evidence in respect of photocopy of the aforesaid document of 1929.

(6). The defendant-respondents have pleaded that the said photocopy of the document is forged and have opposed the application that the same was not registered and was insufficiently stamped. Therefore, the document was inadmissible in evidence and no secondary evidence can be led.

(7). The trial Court after hearing both the parties, gave a finding that in the writing of Posh Budi 13 Samvat 1986 (corresponding to English Calender year 1929), the value of the described property is more than Rs. 100, therefore, the said writing was required to be registered and properly stamped and the objection of the plaintiffs that 1 Rs. stamp was sufficient, was rejected and ultimately it was held that since the original writing was unstamped and unregistered and no justified reason has been given for not filing the original writing before the Court, therefore, no permission for leading secondary evidence can be granted. The relevant portion of the order of the trial Court is as follows:-

^^mDr fy[kkoV esa 100@& :i;s ls vf/kd lEifr dk fooj.k gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr fy[kkoV dk fof/k vuqlkj i;kZIr LVkEi ,oa jftLVªsku vko;d gks tkrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ@oknh dk ;g dFku fd ftl le; fy[kkoV fy[kh x;h] ml le; ,d :i;s dk LVkEi Hkh fof/k vuqlkj i;kZIr FkkA mDr fy[kkoV ds lEcU/k esa ;g i;kZIr ml le; gks] ekuus ;ksX; ugha gSA mDr fy[kkoV vuLVkEi o vujftLVMZ gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ@oknh }kjk mDr fy[kkoV dh ewy ds lEcU/k esa U;k;ksfpr dkj.k isk u gksus ds dkj.k mDr fy[kkoV dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi dks f}rh;d lk{; ds :i esa izLrqr djus dh U;k;ky; }kjk vuqefr ugha nh tk ldrhA**

(8). The submission of the counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs is that the Jaipu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document