JUDGMENT :

The case is taken up through Audio/Video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the three orders i.e. dated 13.07.2018 (Anneuxre-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-III, Hazaribagh, dated 21.04.2015 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Senior Civil Judge-IV, Hazaribagh and dated 08.08.2012 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-V, Hazaribagh in T. S. No. 68 of 2004 whereby the learned Courts below have rejected the petitioners’ prayer to adduce secondary evidence i.e. photocopy of ‘Batwaranama’.

3. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the plaintiff (the respondent No.1) instituted T. S. No. 68 of 2004 in the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge-I, Hazaribagh seeking the following reliefs:-

“A. That by an adjudication the title of the plaintiff with respect to Schedule ‘C’ land be declared.

B. That by an adjudication it be declared that the sale deed No. 1715 dated 31.01.2001 executed by Bateshwar Narain Singh in favour of Bibi Nashiman is null and void, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff.

C. That the cost of the suit be also awarded to the plaintiff.

D. Any other relief or reliefs deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the plaintiff.” .

4. The defendant No.2 died during the pendency of the suit on 23.07.2005 and the petitioners were substituted as his heirs. The petitioners being the substituted defendants and the defendant No.1 (the respondent No.3) as well as the defendant No.3 (the respondent No.2) filed a petition dated 18.07.2012 to bring on record ‘Batwaranama’ dated 15.01.1972 as per law, but the same was rejected vide order dated 08.08.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-V, Hazaribagh. Further, they filed a petition dated 23.08.2014 for granting leave to bring on record ‘Batwaranama’, but the same was rejected on 21.04.2015. They again filed a petition dated 15.05.2015 for granting leave to prove the photo copy of ‘Batwaranama’ dated 15.01.1972 as secondary evidence, but the same was also rejected vide order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-III, Hazaribagh.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that the existence of the said ‘Batwaranama’ has been admitted. The petitioners have legal right to lead secondary evidence being the photocopy of the ‘Batwaranama’ dated 15.01.1972 in view of Sections 63 & 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1872’). If the impugned orders are allowed to stand, the same will not only cause serious prejudice but shall also cause irreparable injury and loss to the petitioners.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the relevant materials available on record. It is evident from the record that the petitions were presented thrice before the learned Courts below to grant leave to admit the photocopy of ‘Batwaranama’ in the case. The first petition was presented on 18.07.2012 which was rejected by the learned Court below vide order dated 08.08.2012 observing that the photocopy of ‘Batwaranama’ has no evidentiary value and the genuineness of the said document has been challenged by the plaintiffs stating that the said document is a forged one. Thereafter, the defendants did not challenge the said order and kept silence for more than 2 years. They again filed a petition dated 23.08.2014 which was heard on 21.04.2015 and was rejected on the ground that though the defendants wanted to adduce the photocopy of ‘Batwaranama’ dated 15.01.1972 as a secondary evidence, yet it has nowhere been mentioned by the defendants in the petition that the original ‘Batwaranama’ was in whose possession. It has further been held that the said ‘Batwaranama’ has been disputed by the plaintiff stating that the same is a forged one. The defendants again did not challenge the order dated 21.04.2015, rather filed another petition dated