MURLIDHAR YADAV Vs. DIPTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both the aforesaid writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction on 22. 3. 2001. On 7. 3. 2003, the petitioner plaintiff filed an application under Section 65 of Evidence Act standing therein that the when he visited the Court on 21. 3. 2001, he was having original agreement to sale and during the course of meetings with the advocates, the original agreement to sale was lost in the court premises on 21. 3. 2001. THE petitioner immediately filed a complaint and also published the notice in the daily news paper Dainik Navjyoti and Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur Edition dated 22. 3. 2001.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent defendants has empathetically denied the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has utterly failed to prove the correctness and genuineness of the original document, which is alleged to be lost during the visit of the petitioner plaintiff in the Court. The petitioner has utterly failed to adduce the evidence to this effect, therefore, the application has rightly been rejected by the trial court.