STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GUMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under S. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act 1952, preferred on behalf of the State of Rajasthan a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the copy of the judgment filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal is not a copy requisite to be filed under O 41, r. 1. CPC. and Rule 17 of the Rajas-than Revenue Courts Manual. The contention is that the copy filed by the learned Government Advocate is not a copy obtained by him under sec. 76 of the INdian Evidence Act, nor is it a "certified copy" containing an endorsement that it has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the said sec. 76 and the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual and therefore a true copy of the impugned judgment. IN support, has been cited a judgment of the Board, to which both of us were a party, in appeal No. 70/ Jaipur 1959 Isar Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties in this matter and examined the copy also. At the very outset it may be made clear that the facts of the Appeal No. 70/ Appeal/ Jaipur/1959 were entirely different from the facts in the present appeal. In that appeal the copy filed by the appellant was not a copy certified anywhere to be a "true copy" of the impugned order, but only a copy thereof endorsed by the Officer passing that order to the appellant in accordance with sec. 33 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act. And it was in that context that it was examined in the appeal as to whether a copy of that type, without bearing any certificate of its being a "true copy" could be treated to be a "copy" requisite to be filed under O. 41, r. 1. C. P. C. alongwith the memo of appeal. In the present appeal, on the other hand, the copy filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal bears an endorsement under the signatures and seal of the Dy. Collector Jagir Bhilwara passing the impugned order himself alongwith the date on which those signatures were put with a certificate that it was the "true copy" of the judgment.