ANJALI GUPTA Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.1178/2014 (Exemption) in CM(M) 61/2014 CM No.1186/2014 (Exemption) in CM(M) 63/2014 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 61/2014 and CM No.1177/2014 (Stay) CM(M) 63/2014 and CM No. 1185/2014 (Stay) CM(M) 72/2014 and CM No.1249/2014 (Stay) The three petitions challenge the common order dated 17th September, 2013 whereby the application of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs under Section 65 (c) of the Indian Evidence Act were dismissed.

(2.) THE Petitioner Jagdish Prashad is the husband of Shanta Gupta and father -in -law of Anjali Gupta. Three suits were filed being Suit Nos.334/2010, 335/2010 and 336/2010 titled as 'Jagdish Prashad vs. Babu Ram', 'Anjali Gupta vs. Babu Ram' and 'Shanta Gupta vs. Babu Ram' respectively wherein Jagdish Prashad was examined as PW -1 on his own behalf in Suit No.334/2010 and as attorney of Anjali Gupta and Shanta Gupta in the other two suits. The facts in all the three suits are similar. The three suits were filed for recovery of money from the Respondent on the ground that a sum of Rs.1 lakh was deposited by Jagdish Prasad on 13TH January, 2002 with Respondent and two installments of Rs.1 lakhs each on 6th January, 2002 and 13th January, 2002 by Shanta Gupta through her husband Jagdish Prasad and Rs.1 lakhs each in three installments by Anjali Gupta on 3rd September, 2000, 23rd September, 2000 and 6th January, 2002 through her father -in -law with Respondent/Defendant. In this regard the Defendant issued six receipts as per the date of deposit on the letter pad of his firm M/s M.R. Trading Company and the said amount was agreed to be repaid with interest thereon @Rs.1.20% per month. Since original receipts were not available at the time of leading evidence the Petitioners filed application for leading secondary evidence with regard to the six receipts.

(3.) JAGDISH Prashad appeared as PW -1 on behalf of himself and as Power of Attorney of Shanta Gupta and Anjali Gupta and deposed that on 28th February, 2002 two other cases were pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge. His son Rajesh has a Photostat shop where he got the photocopy of the six receipts done before 28th February, 2002 and on the said date he brought all the original six receipts in the Court whereas the Photostat copies were kept at home. After the two cases, that is, 'Jagdish Prashad vs. Suresh' and 'Jagdish Prashad vs. Kailash Chand and others' were adjourned, he came out of the Court room with his counsel and proceeded towards the staircase for coming towards the ground floor. He informed his counsel that he had brought six original receipts but when he put his hand in left side pocket of his pant he was shocked to note that the said six receipts were not in his pocket. Jagdish Prashad went back to the Court of Additional District Judge and inquired from the peon and other staff of the said Court about the six receipts but he could not find the receipts. He also searched for the receipts in the corridor. Thus he went to lodge a report at the police post at Tis Hazari after getting the same typed at Tis Hazari Courts. On 1st March, 2002 he again came to the Court at Tis Hazari to file a case against the Respondent regarding deposit of amount. He purchased the court fee etc and went to inquire at the police post if the receipts were traced however, no receipts were traced and police informed that as and when they would get the receipts he will be informed.