The court emphasized the right to admit documents as evidence in civil proceedings, allowing petitioners to seek admissibility under Section 65 of the Evidence Act despite prior rejection by the Trial Court.

ORDER :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. The petitioners/plaintiffs, aggrieved by order dated 21.05.2024 (Annex.14) passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara (‘Trial Court’), have preferred the instant writ petition, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners/ plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 14 CPC has been partly accepted to the extent of keeping the documents on record, however, the prayer made by the petitioners to form a part of evidence, has been rejected.

2. The facts apposite for the purposes of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant. On being served with the summon of the suit, the respondent/defendant filed his written statement stating therein that the suit property came into his share and possession in view of family settlement arrived at amongst the family members. The issues were thereafter framed on 05.01.2006.

3. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application (Annex.7) under Order VI Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to take certain documents on record viz. certified copies of the three sale-deeds dated 19.04.205, 27.07.1989 and 15.01.1987 pertaining to land of Aaraji Nos.771, 772 and 778, 773 and 3477 of village Bemali. Along with application, the petitioners sought to produce photostat copy of meter card of Electricity Board and rent receipts dated 04.07.1979 containing signatures of Chain Sukh Bohra, as owner.

4. The aforesaid application (Annex.7) was replied by the respondent/defendant on 17.05.2024 (Annex.13) stating therein that the sale-deeds, sought to be brought on record, have no relation to the lis and, therefore, a prayer was made for rejection of the application.

5. The learned Trial Court thereafter heard arguments on the application and vide order dated 21.05.2024 (Annex.14) proceeded to accept the application to the extent of keeping the certain documents on record, however, rejected the application to form a part of evidence. Aggrieved by order impugned to the extent it refuses to take on record the sale-deeds and holding the documents, which have been taken on record, not admissible in evidence, the petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred the instant writ petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that while passing the order impugned, the learned Trial Court has not assigned any valid reason as to why the documents shall not be admitted in evidence, though the documents after being found to be worth taking on record, the documents ought to have been admitted and allowed in evidence and while not doing so, the learned Trial Court has seriously erred. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Trial Court has admitted in evidence the photostat copy of document dated 06.09.1977 produced by the respondent vide order dated 14.09.2006, however, on the other hand documents submitted by the petitioners have been refused to be taken on record on ipse dixit ground of it being a photostat copy and not the original or certified copy, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners/plaintiffs and the petitioners/plaintiffs have been deprived of from securing justice.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that earlier counsel, who was appearing on behalf of petitioners/plaintiffs, unfortunately expired and, therefore, the relevant documents could not be produced and exhibited and it was only when the plaintiffs engaged another counsel, the application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC was filed with a prayer to take the photostat copies of documents on record, inasmuch as the original documents were either with the earlier counsel, who expired or the documents have been misplaced. Thus, the documents in question were liable to be admitted in evidence and this aspect has not at all been considered by the learned Trial Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners f