KALLIRAM Vs. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has impugned the order dated 20th May, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar allowed the application of the Respondent -Defendant No. 1 Hari Ram filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act imploring that the certified copy of a document with regard to dissolution of partnership be admitted as secondary evidence.

(2.) HAVING considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the impugned order, it is noticed that the Respondent No. 2 Hari Ram was a partner in the partnership firm M/s. Hari Om Iron and Tin Manufacturing Company, Alwar. This partnership stood dissolved and a dissolution of partnership was scribbled on 2nd April, 1979. The Respondent no. 2 Hari Ram was not in possession of the original dissolution of partnership deed, hence he obtained a copy thereof from District Industrial Centre, Alwar and filed the same in evidence imploring the court to allow him to file the same as secondary evidence. The learned trial court, having considered the arguments of both the parties and discussed all the facts and circumstances ad -longum, observed that the existence of the document was not doubtful as a certified copy of the document was obtained by Respondent No. 2 Hari Ram from District Industrial Centre, Alwar. It has also emerged on record that the original deed was not available with the District Industrial Centre, Alwar also. The definition of secondary evidence, as laid in Section 63 of Indian Evidence Act is exhaustive and it includes copies made from the original by mechanical process, which in themselves ensure accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies. Needless to say that the said copy of the original document has been made available to the Respondent No. 2 Hari Ram by a public office. Hence, at this stage, this document cannot be said to be forged one. So far as genuineness of document is concerned, the learned trial court has already observed in the impugned order that the same shall be decided after recording the evidence led by both the parties. The impugned order is found to be just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity. Since the source, from where the copy of the document is found to have obtained by the Respondent No. 2 is a public office and the sanctity of the office cannot be questioned or has not been challenged before the learned trial court, in view of such a situation, the learned trial court rightly allowed the Respondent Hari Ram to file the said document as a secondary evidence. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to this effect that he never executed such a document, is not sustainable at this stage. Hence, the writ petition being bereft of substance deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

(3.) CONSEQUENT upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.