Back
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
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.
Secondary evidence is admissible for public documents unless substantial evidence of forgery is presented.
Secondary evidence requires proof of the original document's non-production; a party must establish a foundation in pleadings for its admissibility.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss applications for secondary evidence and under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, affirming that primary evidence must be available for secondary evidence t....
The admissibility of documents must be established before allowing secondary evidence, as per the provisions of the Evidence Act and relevant case law.
Will - Proof of documents by primary evidence.—Documents must be proved by primary evidence except When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power— of the person against whom t....
Secondary evidence under Section 65 Evidence Act requires proof of original's loss via affidavit from custodian or witness examination; absence thereof with filing delay during evidence stage warrant....
Photocopies cannot be admitted as secondary evidence under Section 60(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam without satisfying strict legal requirements, including proof of loss of originals.
No application is required to be filed before leading secondary evidence, and the misconception that such application is necessary was condemned by the court.
Validation of secondary evidence requires strict adherence to stipulations under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, failing which the application may be quashed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
