STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHIV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these four cases the point for determination is whether the copies submitted along with the memos of appeal therein fulfil the requirements of order 41 R. 1 C. P. C. read with R. 17 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual Part I.

(2.) IN appeal No. 32 Bhilwara, 1959 and appeal No. 20 Chittorgarh, 1959 the copies attached have been attested to be "true copy" by the Officer on Special Duty, Jagir Rajasthan. IN appeal No. 31, Bhilwara 1959 and appeal N0. 32 Tonk 1959 the copies submitted have been signed by the Officer delivering the judgment himself.

(3.) THIS point again came for examination before a D. B. of the Board in Appeal No. 3 Bhilwara 1961, State versus Guman Singh decided on 12. 5. 61 to which also one of us was a party. The appeal No. 70 (Jaipur 1959) referred to in the preceding paragraphs was distinguished in this judgment. It was found that the copy submitted in that appeal nowhere bore any certificate that it was a "true copy" but that it was only a copy endorsed to the appellant in accordance with the relevant provisions of the relevant law. In this appeal it was a copy which was attested to be a true copy by the presiding Officer delivering the judgment himself. The provisions of Sec. 76 of the Indian Evidence Act were examined in this appeal and it was held that sec. 76 was only an enabling section and no:"exhaustive"provision for the obtaining of copies of judgments. It was further observed therein that if the copy presented with a memo, of appeal bore a certificate that it was a true copy of the judgment it served the purpose to ensure the correctness thereof and that the purpose for which it was required to be filed was served. It was held that "what is most important and most necessary for the purpose of assuring the appellate court that it could without any doubt and With certainly take the copy produced before it along with the memo of appeal to be the correct copy of the judgment under appeal is that it should bear a certificate of the officer that it was a true copy and no other endorsements are required to be made thereon. They are endorsements that the officer granting copies should generally make and if they do not care to make them, they can be taken to task for the default. But an appellant cannot certainly be penalised for the absence of such endorsements due to the default of the Officers issuing the copy. If the copy produced does bear a certificate that it is "true copy" the requirement of the law in this behalf should be taken to have been fulfilled and the absence of other endorsements alone should not in any way be taken to take away the value of such copy being a "true copy. "