NIRMA LIMITED Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The petitioner claims itself to be the successor-in-title in relation to the land falling in Khasra No.416 admeasuring 18 bighas located at Village Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali. The petitioner submitted an application under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 alongwith an affidavit for taking public notice dtd. 2/1/2011 on record as published in 'Dainik Navjyoti' through the counsel Shri Ramgopal Sharma on behalf of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Cement Pvt. Ltd., however, the same was rejected by the court below vide order dtd. 14/2/2019. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Maharaj Kumar Chand Vs. Jodhpur Film Vitrak Sahakari Samiti Ltd., reported in RLW 1999(1) Raj page 977, relevant portion whereof read as follows :-

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not chosen to file reply to the affidavit whereby such publication of notice has been sought to be brought on record by way of filing application U/s.65 of the Evidence Act. Since the document itself is not controverted and original was not traceable, therefore, the petitioner having left with no other option but move such application. Facility of publication in newspaper cannot be availed by the petitioner as the document is not on record alongwith the original pleadings and, therefore, for such presumption the documents shall have to be taken on record if at all such presumption has to be drawn. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that photocopy of a document is exact version and once it is not denied, then taking the document on record would only enable court below proper adjudication of the dispute in- question.