CHIMNA RAM Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dtd. 10/2/2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jaitaran (Pali), whereby, the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act') seeking permission to lead secondary evidence has been rejected.

(2.) The non-petitioner-plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of release deed and for permanent injunction. The petitioner filed written statement and contested the suit. During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking direction to the petitioner to produce the original memorandum of family settlement/partition dtd. 14/5/1978. The petitioner filed reply to the application and denied possession of the document and stated that the plaintiffs' father - Jhumar Lal had made a photo copy of the original and had given to him. The trial court observing that as a specific indication has been made in the reply that the original document is not in possession of the defendant, the application was disposed of.

(3.) The petitioner, whereafter, filed an application under Sec. 65 of the Act with the averments that based on the written partition dtd. 14/5/1978, written statement has been filed, as the defendant was minor at the relevant time, being 'Karta Khandaan' the original of the deed was kept by father of the plaintiffs and other brothers; on account of filing of the suit when the defendant sought original, the same was refused and, therefore, along with the written statement a photocopy of the document was produced. It was further indicated that it has also been determined by the Court that the original is not in possession of the defendant and, therefore, the said photocopy needs to be produced as secondary evidence. Based on the said averments, permission to lead secondary evidence was sought.