Partly allowed

Sh Pratapmal Dharewa Dadabadi TRUSTandORS v. Ganpat Das and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Apr 2018CW/1672/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Responding to a writ petition seeking quashing of an order dismissing an application under Section 65 Evidence Act, the Court held the lower court had ample power under Section 65E. The matter is remanded with liberty to file necessary affidavit or proof that originals were destroyed, to be decided later.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed; impugned order dated 10.01.2017 quashed and set aside; matter remanded with liberty to file affidavit/proof of destroyed records.

Sh Pratapmal Dharewa Dadabadi TRUSTandORS… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1672 / 2017

¶3

Shri Pratapmal Dharewa Dadabadi Trust, Sujangarh Through Its Trustees

¶4

1. Jhanwari Mal S/o Shri Malchand, Aged About 85 Years, B/c Oswal, R/o Sujanarh, District Churu.

¶5

1. Sumermal S/o Shri Thanmal, Aged About 72 Years, B/c Oswal Surana, R/o Sujangarh District Churu.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ganpat Das S/o Shri Kalu Das, B/c Swami R/o Sujangarh District Churu

¶9

Sohan

¶10

Gangadhar

¶11

Navratan, All Sons of Kalu Das, by Caste Swami, R/o Mohalla, Swamiyon Ka Bas, Hanuman Dhora, Sujangarh District Churu

¶12

Smt. Gora D/o Shri Kalu Das, By Caste Swami, R/o Ladnu District Nagaur.

¶13

Smt. Kalli D/o Shri Kalu Das, By Caste Swami, R/o Village Sunari, Tehsil-Ladnu District Nagaur.

¶14

Smt. Rami D/o Kalu Das, By Caste Swami, R/o Dujar, TehsilLadnu District Nagaur.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. SL Jain

¶17

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Swati Kotach, Mr. Vikas Choudhary

¶18

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶19

Order

¶20

20/04/2018

¶21

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 227 & 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

[CW-1672/2017]

¶24

“1. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the order impugned dated 10.01.2017 passed in COS No.31/2007 by Additional District Judge, Sujangarh District Churu may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the application of the petitioner trust under Section 65 of the Evidence Act be allowed as prayed for.

¶25

Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶26

Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner-plaintiff / Trust instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that the defendants be restrained from trespassing in the property in dispute. The petitioner has moved an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act praying to take on record the proceedings before the Devasthan Commissioner, Jodhpur including the statement of Bhanwar Lal Dharewa, Kalu Das and Shrichand Bengani that were recorded at Devasthan Department, Bikaner, certified copies whereof are in the file of the Devasthan Department.

¶27

Learned court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not filed an affidavit supporting the fact that the original certified copies sought to be brought on record have been destroyed. Learned court below has further held that the petitioner has also failed to provide any proof regarding copies having been destroyed by the concerned department.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[CW-1672/2017]

¶31

submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶32

This Court finds that under Section 65E of the Evidence Act, the learned court below has ample power to take the certified copies of the public document on record, and therefore, in the interest of justice, the writ petition is partly allowed and while quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 the matter is remanded back to the learned court below with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate affidavit or proof for the purpose of substantiating his claim that the original record has been destroyed and if such proof is furnished, his application under Section 65 E of the Evidence Act shall be appropriately considered and decided, strictly in accordance with law.

¶33

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶34

sudheer

Sh Pratapmal Dharewa Dadabadi TRUSTandORS v. Ganpat Das and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh Pratapmal Dharewa Dadabadi TRUSTandORS v. Ganpat Das and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratibha Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ms. Nirmala Shrimali Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Bhupendra Choubisa Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Harish Patidar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Anil Kumar Teli Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Baljeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State and Ors.