RAMDEO BHARTI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by orders dated 18.12.2012 and 5.3.2013, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a list of documents was filed vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition in the pending Suit No. 1075 of 2007 and for marking those documents an application dated 3.10.2012 was filed in the court of the Settlement Officer, Dhanbad which has been erroneously rejected by the impugned order and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to move this court. It is submitted that the documents which the defendant/petitioner intended to exhibit and mark in the pending proceeding were all certified copy of the documents obtained from the High Court of Jharkhand and therefore, the learned trial court could not have rejected the prayer of the defendant. It is further submitted that since the certified copy of the documents would come within the preview of the secondary evidence which is admissible in evidence, those documents should have been admitted in evidence by the learned Settlement Officer, Dhanbad.

(2.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that admittedly, the documents which the defendant intended to get marked were the certified copy obtained from the record of the Criminal Revision filed before the High Court of Jharkhand and therefore, those documents cannot be said to be certified copy of the original and therefore, for bringing those evidence on record, the petitioner/defendant was required to prove those documents in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record. The application dated 3.10.2012 filed by the petitioner was an application, "petition for accepting the certified copy of the documents without proving those through secondary evidence". It is the case of the petitioner himself that those documents have been obtained from the High Court of Jharkhand. The petitioner has not disclosed any reason for not producing the original of those documents. A copy of the document obtained from the High Court cannot be said to be the certified copy of the original document in question. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders dated 18.12.2012 and 5.3.2013 and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.