VINOD KUMAR Vs. BRIJ MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision has been filed against the order Dt. 1.12.2012, passed by the learned Munsiff, Katra, in suit titled "Brij Mohan v. Raj Kumari and ors", whereby the application filed by the applicants-petitioners herein for permission to lead secondary evidence to prove the registered rent deed Dt. 31.1.1986, has been rejected. The court below proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the application filed by the petitioners was not maintainable in as much as, notice in terms of Section 66 of the Evidence Act (here-in-after called the Act), had not been served, which according to the learned Munsiff, was a pre-requisite.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the trial court had taken a very technical view of the matter and that the notice should be deemed to have been served on the non-applicants-respondents herein in terms of the aforementioned Section when the petitioners-applicants before the trial court, had filed an application under Order XI R. 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for production of the original rent deed Dt. 31.1.1986, executed by the non applicants-respondents. It was stated that in reply to the aforementioned application, the respondents filed their objections wherein it was stated that the respondent-non applicants were not in possession of any such rent deed alleged to have been executed nor did they have any knowledge with regard to the execution thereof. It is in that context urged that it was not necessary for the petitioners to issue a formal notice as envisaged under Section 66 of the Evidence Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, questioned the maintainability of the revision petition itself in the light of the amendment to Section 115 of the CPC. He further reiterated that in the absence of any notice as envisaged under Section 66 of the Act, the application was rightly rejected by the learned trial court.