MAHADEVI Vs. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Sri S.S.Mamadapur appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned counsel Sri Ganesh C.Kalburgi appearing for sole respondent.

(2.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 5/12/2022 in OS No.29/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Jude, Indi wherein the Trial Court has rejected IAs.16, 17 and 18 filed by the defendant, wherein the defendant sought reopening of the case, permission to lead evidence and to produce secondary evidence i.e., xerox copy of an agreement for sale dtd. 10/6/2013. This application was opposed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court accepted the contentions of the plaintiff and rejected the application on the premise that the notice is not given to the plaintiff for production of original copy of the agreement which the defendant alleged what is with the plaintiff. The Trial Court is also of the view that the requirement of Ss. 63 , 64 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act is not complied for production of secondary evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defendant has filed an application before the Trial Court alleging that the original of the document is with the plaintiff and the plaintiff should be summoned to produce the document. To this application the plaintiff has filed statement of objection denying the custody of the original agreement with him and plaintiff has also denied the execution of document dtd. 0/6/2013 itself.