Quashed

Vishnu Prasad Gupta Son of Shri Mool Chand Gupta v. Ram Singh Jat Son of Late Shri Prabhu Singh

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2024CW/19167/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the impugned order of a Gram Nyayalaya which rejected an application for secondary evidence without deciding it on merits. The court remanded the matter for a fresh hearing after providing an opportunity of hearing to all parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 16.08.2019 is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Court below to rehear the application on merits.

Vishnu Prasad Gupta Son of Shri Mool… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19167/2019

¶3

Vishnu Prasad Gupta Son Of Shri Mool Chand Gupta, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Vaidh Colony, Gangapur City, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ram Singh Jat Son Of Late Shri Prabhu Singh, Resident Of Sainik Nagar, Gangapur City, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶7

Kamal Singh Jat Son Of Late Shri Prabhu Singh, Resident Of Nehru Colony, Islampura, Gangapur City, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶8

Sub Registrar, Tehsildar, Tehsil Gangapur City.

¶9

Landholder, Tehsildar, Tehsil Gangapur City.

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Sawai Madhopur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhi Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. DK Dixit Mr. Shailesh Sharma, AGC

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

10/01/2024

¶16

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 16.08.2019, passed by Gram Nyayalaya, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Evidence Act has been rejected.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agreement was executed between the parties for sale of the

¶18

[CW-19167/2019]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

property in question on 29.07.1987. Counsel submits that at the time of filing of the suit, a specific averment was made in the suit itself that the original of the aforesaid agreement was lost, for which an FIR was registered by the petitioner with the Police Station, Gangapur City. Counsel submits that when the matter came up for recording of the evidence of the plaintiff, he submitted an application for allowing him to lead secondary evidence on the basis of photocopy of the agreement dated 29.07.1987. Counsel submits that instead of deciding the said application on its merits and demerits, the Court below has gone a step ahead and recorded a finding that the document was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.3.50/- hence the same was not sufficiently stamped and was not admissible in evidence. Counsel submits that such finding of the Court below was quite immature as such observation could have only been made by the Court below at the subsequent stage if any objection would have been taken by the respondents-defendants at the appropriate stage. Counsel submits that under these circumstances the matter requires consideration.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentsdefendants opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that since the document in question was not sufficiently stamped hence the same was not admissible in evidence. Under these circumstances the Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for allowing him to lead secondary evidence. Counsel submits that the order passed by the Court below is a reasoned and justified order which needs no interference by this court.

¶22

[CW-19167/2019]

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶25

Without going into the controversy involved in the matter that whether the document in question was sufficiently stamped or not, it is observed that the Court below could have made such observation, at the subsequent stage, if at all any objection would have been taken by the other side at a later stage. While deciding application filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, the Court below was supposed to decide the said application on its merits. Here in the instant case, no such observation has been made whether the petitioner can be allowed to lead secondary evidence or not.

¶26

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.08.2019 stands quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below to rehear the application filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Evidence Act and pass appropriate order on the merits of the application after affording opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties.

¶27

It goes without saying that the Court below would pass the order without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.

¶28

The instant writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶29

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶30

KuD/Diksha/223

Vishnu Prasad Gupta Son of Shri Mool Chand Gupta v. Ram Singh Jat Son of Late Shri Prabhu Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Prasad Gupta Son of Shri Mool Chand Gupta v. Ram Singh Jat Son of Late Shri Prabhu Singh

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

Shri Ankit Duhan S/O Shri Dalveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shashi Gupta W/O Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Sudha Nursing School Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sohan Lal Prajapat and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dharam Singh S/O Shri Ramkishan Vs Buddhi Prakash S/O Sh. Sheoji

Dr. Monia Goyal Wife of Dr. Kapil Gupta, D/O Shri Ramniwas Goyal Vs Medical Council of India