Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 947
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J
MAHAVEER PRASAD SON OF SHRI BRIJ LAL MAHAJAN KHAJANCHI – Appellant
Versus
GURUSHARAN – Respondent
CW / 6655 / 2023
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Evidence
Act Referred
Evidence Act, 1872 : S.65
Headnote
(B) Secondary Evidence - The court reiterated that secondary evidence can be admitted when the original document is a public document and not forged. (Paras 5)
Facts of the case:
The defendants challenged the trial court's orders allowing secondary evidence of a registered will in a civil suit for eviction and rent filed by the plaintiffs. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The trial court did not err in allowing the secondary evidence as the registered will was deemed a public document and the defendants failed to prove forgery. (Paras 5)
Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court erred in allowing secondary evidence and dismissing the review application. (Paras 1-2)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that secondary evidence is permissible for public documents unless there is substantial evidence of forgery. (Paras 5)
Result: The petition filed by the defendants is dismissed.
Mr. Ajay Gupta with Ms. Sampati Sharma
Order :
1. This civil writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kotputli, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in case No. 11/2022, whereby the said court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and against the order dated 18.01.2023, whereby the trial Court allowed the application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
2. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 6-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a civil suit for eviction and rent and mesne profit against the defendants in which plaintiffs moved an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act and the trial Court vide order dated 18.01.2023 wrongly allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs for adducing the secondary evidence. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that defendants filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the order 18.01.2023 passed by the trial Court but the trial Court vide order dated 17.02.2023 dismissed the review application filed by the defendants.
3. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that plaintiffs filed an application for adducing the secondary evidence with regard to notice given by them. Plaintiffs had deliberately wrote that they wanted to adduce secondary evidence with the regard to registered will. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that he had filed reply with regard to application and the same was overlooked. So, the orders dated 18.01.2023 and 17.02.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and perused the material available on record.
5. It is an admitted position that application filed by the plaintiffs clearly revealed that they wanted to adduce the secondary evidence with regard to registered will. Trial Court vide order dated 18.01.2023 allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs with regard to adducing the secondary evidence of the registered will because it was a public document. There is no reason to arrive at the conclusion that the said document is forged one. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had not committed any error in allowing the application with regard to secondary evidence of the registered will and dismissing the review application. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
6. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
