BHOLA PRASAD Vs. NABI RASUL MIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the civil revision application against the order dated 23.11.2000 passed by Sub -Judge -VI, Gopalganj in Title Suit No. 396/ 1993 (Nabi Rasul & Ors. vs. Bhola Prasad & Ors.), by which the court below has refused to mark a copy of a sale deed as exhibit in terms of Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(2.) THE short facts relevant for the consideration of the present matter are that the petitioners who were the contesting defendants in the court below, had, during the course of hearing of the suit, filed a photocopy of a registered sale deed dated 29.3.1891 executed by wife and sons of the ex - owner of the disputed land which was marked as Ext. 'X ' for identification. During the course of hearing D.W. 11 Mantu Giri examined by the petitioners had stated that at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of wives of the petitioners, a photocopy of the said registered sale deed dated 29.3.1891 was handed over by the vendor which was prepared through the process of photostat and was compared also from the original document in his presence. During the course of hearing summons were also served through the process of the Court on Moti Lal, Changi Lal and others, the vendors of the petitioners, for production of the said document, dated 29.3.1891 and the process server was also examined on behalf of the defendant -petitioners as D. W. 12 who proved the proper service on the said persons in whose possession the original of the said document was lying. Since the same was not produced, therefore, the petitioners filed an application on 17.11.2000 under Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872f or marking the photocopy of the said document dated 29.3.1891 as exhibit in the case mentioning the said facts about the calling of the document from the possession of the concerned persons which was not produced. It was further stated in the said application that the certified copy of the said document was not available in the Registry Office because the entire old documents were sealed by the order of the competent authority and accordingly, a request was made to mark the said document as exhibit in terms of Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(3.) BY the impugned order dated 23.11.2000 the application for marking the said document as exhibit was rejected for the reason that no cogent reason has been given by the petitioners for non -production of the original document or copy of the original document in the court.