MOTARAM Vs. HEERALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner-defenant No.1 assailing the legality and validity of the order dtd. 23/10/2021 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu in Civil Suit No.56/2018 whereby, allowing the application filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff under Ss. 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1872'), a photocopy of the registered patta has been permitted as secondary evidence.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction, possession and permanent injunction on the strength of a patta dtd. 10/11/1986 issued by the Gram Panchayat Kolinda in his favour. During the course of trial, he moved an application under Ss. 65 and 66 of the Act of 1872 seeking permission of the Court to exhibit a photocopy of the patta by way of secondary evidence. The application has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dtd. 23/10/2021, which is subject matter of challenge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court towards the provisions of Sec. 65 of the Act of 1872, canvasses that when the original is a public document within the meaning of Sec. 74, its certified copy only is admissible as secondary evidence and no other kind. He submits that since, the patta in question is a public document having been issued by the Gram Panchayat Kolinda, its photocopy was not admissible as secondary evidence. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the order dtd. 23/10/2021 be quashed and set aside.