RANGLAL Vs. SHEELA DEVI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Plaintiff has laid this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution to assail the impugned order dated 26.08.2015 (Annex.6) passed by the Civil Judge, Mavali, Udaipur (for short 'the learned court below') and for issuing necessary direction to the learned court below to take certified copies of the documents (Annex.7) on record with consequential relief.

(2.) The precise objection of the respondent was that these documents are not certified copies but the copies obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act and notarised by the Notary Public. Therefore, these documents cannot be admitted in evidence even as secondary evidence. Sustaining the objection of the respondent, the learned court below by order dated 30.07.2015 directed the petitioner-plaintiff to place on record certified copies of these documents. Although latitude was given to the petitioner to place on record certified copies of the documents but the learned court below put a word of caution that required certified copies be placed on record at the earliest as the case is among the oldest cases of the court. On the next date of hearing, the petitioner made endeavour to apprise the learned court below that he has not been able to obtain certified copies of the documents, therefore, some breathing time may be allowed for producing certified copies of the documents. After considering the objection of the respondent, the learned court below by the order impugned declined the prayer of the petitioner and closed its evidence. It is in that background, the petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) In the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that after passing of the impugned order, he has been able to obtain certified copies of the documents and the documents are also sought to be placed on record as Annex.7. For challenging the impugned order, essentially, the petitioner has relied on the earlier order passed by the learned court below dated 30.07.2015 (Annex.4) whereby he was permitted to produce certified copies of the documents. The petitioner has also contended in the writ petition that after passing of the order, sincere efforts were made by the petitioner for obtaining certified copies of the documents but it took some time in locating the documents and has occasioned delay for obtaining certified copies. With all these positive assertions, the petitioner has prayed for exercising supervisory jurisdiction to do substantial justice in the matter.