RAJ KUMAR Vs. MOHD. KAUKAB AZIM RIZVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for petitioners.

(2.) Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in case an unregistered sale deed is produced before the Court as surety, same should have been accepted and application 8-C filed to deposit the security in compliance of Sec. 17 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1887') along with application 4-C under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") may not be rejected on this ground. Secondly, the photocopy of any document is secondary evidence as per Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1872') therefore, same cannot be rejected as surety. He next submitted that finding of the court below is that photocopy of the sale deed is not legible is also not correct as in fact the sale deed is very much legible, therefore, finding of Court below is bad. He assailed this finding before the Revisional Court, but the Court has also not returned any finding upon this ground. There is no compliance of Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC, therefore, Court may not proceed ex parte without compliance of the provisions of CPC. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court as well as this Court in the matters of S. Kaladevi vs. V.R. Somasundaram and Ors.; 2010(3) JT 610 and Ishtiaq Hussain vs. Ashfaq Hussain (Civil Revision No. 132 of 1984), decided on 30/1/1985.