DUM RAM Vs. BHANWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 4.1.1999, passed in Civil Suit No. 20-A/92 by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Raigarh, rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and refusing to grant permission to prove the document dated 16.5.1966 by leading secondary evidence.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that non-applicant No. 1 Bhanwar Lal filed Civil suit before the trial Court inter-alia pleading that the property in dispute, which is in possession of the present applicants, belongs to him and he is entitled to declaration that the sale-deed executed by Haldhar/defendant No. 3/non-applicant does not bind him.

(3.) Present applicants/defendants No. 1 & 2 submitted that the property was purchased by them from Haldhar and as such the plaintiff Bhanwar Lal has no right, title or interest in the property. Haldhar-defendant No. 3 in his turn submitted in his written statement that the property in dispute originally belongs to one Jagannath, from whom it was suceeded by Ramdayal and thereafter Haldhar's father Narmada Prasad sold the property to him. He also submitted that the sale-deed dated 16.5.1966 was executed in his favour by his father, therefore, he became the absolute owner and was entitled to alienate the property in favour of defendant Nos. 1 & 2 for production of original sale-deed dated 16.5.1966. The applicants have a notice to produce the document to defendant No.3, who in his reply submitted on oath that the document was not available with him. He could not trace the same and it was not likely to be traced in near future. Finding the difficulty, the present applicants moved an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act requesting the Court that as the original document was not available, they be permitted to produce the certified copy by means of secondary evidence. The said application was contested by the plaintiff. As the said application was rejected by the Court below, applicants have come to this Court.