SURENDRA BAHADUR SINGH Vs. KAPIL SONI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dt. 12.04.2014 passed by the trial Court, whereby, the application filed by the respondent -plaintiff under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act') has been allowed. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Sec. 65 of the Act, inter alia, with the averments that a copy of the rent note, which had been filed with the plaint, its original was not available; a copy whereof was filed by his father in the suit filed by him before the Court of Additional Munsif No. 2, Jodhpur and the defendant - Trilok Chand Golecha in his written statement had admitted his signatures on the said rent note; the rent note was not disputed and was a admitted document and, therefore, permission for secondary evidence may be granted.

(2.) THE application filed by the plaintiff was opposed by the petitioner -defendant on the ground that the same was not supported by affidavit and it has not been proved that the original has been lost and, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court fell in error in allowing the application filed under Sec. 65 of the Act as the requirements as envisaged by Section 65 of the Act were not fulfilled, inasmuch as, the plaintiff has even failed to assert that the original of the document in question has been lost and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.