Smt. Sharda Kanwar Vs State and Ors.

Counsel for the petitioner has shown FIR of 2008, which is on record of the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has further shown from record a photocopy of the ‘Patta’ in-question, a certified copy of which the petitioner himself is possessing.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that his application to take the ‘Patta’ in-question on record under Section 65 of the Evidence Act has been wrongly dismissed by the trial court.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated from his own record a certified copy of the ‘Patta’ in-question, exact certified photocopy whereof is on the record of learned court below.

¶16

This Court looking into the fact that the FIR itself is of 2008 and certified copy of the ‘Patta’ in-question is there with the counsel for the petitioner and exact certified photocopy whereof is

¶17

(2 of 2) [CW-10156/2016]

¶18

there on record before the trial court, is inclined to allow the writ petition.

¶19

Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The order impugned is quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to treat the certified copy of ‘Patta’ in-question as a secondary evidence in accordance with the Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

¶20

The record of trial court be immediately send back.

¶21

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶22

37-nirmala/-

Smt. Sharda Kanwar v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sharda Kanwar v. State 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

Navin Bhansali and Ors. Vs B.O.R.,Raj. Ajmer and Ors.

Chotu Lal Giri Vs Union of India

Lrs of Smt. Devi Vs Lrs of Narpat Chand and Ors.

Suman Swami Vs State and Anr.

Kishan Lal Soni Vs Shri Nagrik Shiksha Samiti

Smt. Marudhar Kanwar Vs State and Ors.