HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14434/2019

Punjab National Bank, Branch Manu Marg, Alwar Rajasthan

Through Branch Manager

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Indian Bank Branch, Station Road, Alwar District Alwar

Rajasthan Through Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Branch

Station Road Alwar District Alwar Rajasthan

2.

Rajesh Sharma S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, R/o 58,

Bank Colony, Alwar Rajasthan

3.

Dharampal, C/o M/s. Mahesh Glass House, Station Road,

Kumher Road, Bharatpur Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Ram Charan Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Ashok Mehta, Sr. Counsel assisted

by Mr. Devesh Kumar

Mr. Vineet Mehta

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

06/11/2019

1.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging

the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Additional District

Judge No.2, Alwar whereby the application submitted by the

petitioner under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act was

dismissed.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1-plaintiff

filed a suit for recovery against the petitioner as well as

respondent No.2 & 3. During pendency of the suit proceedings,

the petitioner-defendant No.1 filed an application under Section 65

of the Indian Evidence Act for taking on record certain documents

as secondary evidence which was dismissed by the court below

vide order dated 07.11.2017. After passing of some time, the

(2 of 3)

[CW-14434/2019]

petitioner-defendant No.1 again filed an application under Section

65 of the Indian Evidence Act on the same facts which was also

dismissed by the court below vide order dated 08.07.2019.

3.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents

which are being requested to be taken on record are necessary to

just decide the controversy involved in the present suit. Counsel

further submits that the petitioner-defendant made several efforts

to get such documents from the police agency, but since the same

were not supplied, therefore, the present application was filed.

4.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted

that on the same facts subsequent application under Section 65 is

not maintainable and no second opportunity can be granted to

submit application before the court below.

5.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar

Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia reported in (2018) 2

Supreme Court Cases 87 in which para 12 has held as under:-

“12. This being the position, the case which was

sought to be set up in the proposed amendment

was an elaboration of what was stated in the

written statement. The High Court has in the

exercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 227 of

the Constitution entered upon the merits of the

case which was sought to be set up by the

Appellant in the amendment. This is

impermissible. Whether an amendment should

be allowed is not dependent on whether the

case which is proposed to be set up will

eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into

merits, the High Court transgressed the

limitations on its jurisdiction Under Article 227.

In Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

this Court has held that the supervisory

jurisdiction conferred on the High Court Under

Article 227 is confined only to see whether an

inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within

the parameters of its jurisdiction. In the exercise

of its jurisdiction Under Article 227, the High

(3 of 3)

[CW-14434/2019]

Court does not act as an appellate court or

tribunal and it is not open to it to review or

reassess the evidence upon which the inferior

court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial

Court had in the considered exercise of its

jurisdiction allowed the amendment of the

written statement Under Order 6 Rule 17 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. There was no reason for