Allowed

Anjan Kumar Goswami Son of (Late) Shri Pradyumn Kumar Dev Goswami v. Thakur Ji Shri Govind Dev Ji Maharaj Virajman City Palace

Rajasthan HC3 May 2024CW/2565/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition setting aside trial court orders for admission of secondary evidence. The Court held that secondary evidence under Section 65 Evidence Act is inadmissible when original documents lie in other pending suits between the same parties and are movable within the court's reach.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 02.08.2019 and 10.01.2024 allowing secondary evidence were set aside. Plaintiff may retrieve originals via Order 13 Rule 9 CPC.

Anjan Kumar Goswami Son of (Late) Shri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2565/2024

¶3

Anjan Kumar Goswami Son Of (Late) Shri Pradyumn Kumar Dev Goswami, Aged About 74 Years, Sevayat/mahant Thakur Ji Shri Govind Dev Ji Maharaj, Virajman City Palace, Jainiwas Udyan, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Resident Of Shri Govind Dev Ji Ki Haveli, 303, Khawas Ji Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Thakur Ji Shri Govind Dev Ji Maharaj Virajman City Palace, Jaipur Through Mahant And Sevayat Shri Othesh Kumar Goswami, Son Of (Late) Shri Pradyumn Kumar Dev Goswami, Thakur Ji Shri Govind Dev Ji Maharaj, Virajman City Palace, Jainiwas Udyan, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶7

Othesh Kumar Goswami Son Of (Late) Shri Pradyumn Kumar Dev Goswami, Sevayat / Mahant Thakur Ji Shri Govind Dev Ji Maharaj, Virajman City Palace, Jainiwas Udyan, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Resident Of Shri Govind Dev Ji Ki Haveli, 303, Khawas Ji Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶8

Anuj Kumar Goswami Son Of (Late) Shri Pradyumn Kumar Dev Goswami, Aged About 70 Years, Sevayat / Mahant Thakur Ji Shri Govind Dev Ji Maharaj Virajman, Vrindavan, R/o Shri Govind Dev Ji Ki Haveli, 303, Khawas Ji Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Rajasthan) And Presently Residing At New Govind Mandir, Govind Ghera, P.o. Vrindavan, Mathura

¶9

Assistant Commissioner Devasthan Department (First), Sanskrit College, Opposite Purani Vidhan Sabha Sirah Dyodi Bazaar, Jaipur.

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Collectorate Building, Bani Park, Jaipur

¶11

Respondents

¶12

(2 of 17) [CW-2565/2024]

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶15

Order

¶16

Reserved on	: 29/04/2024
Pronounced on	: 03/05/2024
Reportable

¶17

*********

¶18

The best evidence is the primary evidence. The most universal rule is that secondary evidence is admissible in evidence only when primary evidence is not available. It is in this background, the controversy involved in this writ petition is required to be decided.

¶19

The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 02.08.2019 & 10.01.2024, passed by the Additional Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan; & Additional Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I respectively in Civil Suit No.89/2014, by which the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent (herein after referred to as “the plaintiff”) under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (herein after referred to as “the Evidence Act”) has been allowed and the plaintiff has been allowed to lead secondary evidence i.e., the certified copies of Will dated 22.06.1997 and Family Settlement dated 01.01.1998, were allowed to be exhibited in evidence.

¶20

[CW-2565/2024]

¶21

(3 of 17)

¶22

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner/Defendant:-

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant-petitioner (“herein after referred as the defendant”). During pendency of the said suit, earlier an application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC was submitted by the plaintiff for summoning the original Will dated 22.06.1997, from the Court of 3^rd Upper Civil Judge, (CD) Mathura filed in suit No.704/2009, and for summoning the original Family Settlement dated 01.01.1998 lying in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Mathura in suit No.527/2002. The said application filed by the plaintiff was rejected vide order dated 20.11.2018. Counsel submits that subsequently, an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act has been submitted by the plaintiff for leading secondary evidence in the form of certified copies of the Will and Family Settlement. Counsel further submits that, when it is the admitted case of the plaintiff that these original documents i.e., Will and Family Settlement are available in the file of the Courts at Mathura, then there was no reason or occasion available with him for seeking permission to lead secondary evidence more particularly when the primary evidence is in existence. Counsel submits that an objection was taken by the defendant in this regard before the Court below but the same was turned down and the application filed by the plaintiff has been allowed vide impugned order dated 02.08.2019. Counsel submits that later on an application under Section 151 CPC was submitted by the defendant before the Court below for not allowing the plaintiff to

¶24

[CW-2565/2024]

¶25

(4 of 17)

¶26

mark exhibit on the certified copies of these two documents. Counsel submits that the said application has been rejected by the Trial Judge vide impugned order dated 10.01.2024 and the plaintiff has been allowed to mark exhibit on these certified copies. Counsel submits that the aforesaid orders have been passed by the Court, contrary to the provisions contained under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Counsel submits that under these circumstances the impugned orders dated 02.08.2019 & 10.01.2024 are liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶27

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff:-

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the defendant and submitted that on the earlier occasion, an application was submitted by the plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC wherein a request was made by him for summoning the original Will and Family Settlement from the Courts at Mathura but the same was opposed by the defendant. Counsel submits that the said application filed by the plaintiff was rejected vide order dated 20.11.2018. Counsel submits that under these circumstances no other option was available with the plaintiff except to get the certified copies of the Will as well as the Family Settlement from the Courts at Mathura and after getting the same, these certified copies were submitted on the record of the Trial Court and accordingly an application was submitted under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act for permitting the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence. Counsel submits that as per the provisions contained under Section 65 (d) of the Evidence

¶29

[CW-2565/2024]

¶30

(5 of 17)

¶31

Act when the original documents are of such a nature as not to be easily movable, then under such eventuality, secondary evidence can be led. Counsel submits that since the original documents i.e., the Will as well as the Family settlements are lying with the Courts at Mathura and these documents are not easily movable, hence, under these circumstances certified copies of the same ought to have been allowed to be taken on record. Counsel submits that considering all these material aspects of the matter the learned Trial Judge has rightly allowed the application filed by the plaintiff permitting him to lead secondary evidence in the form of certified copies of the above mentioned original documents and accordingly the Trial Judge has rightly allowed the plaintiff to mark exhibits on the certified copies of these documents. Counsel submits that a reasoned and cogent order has been passed by the trial Court which needs no interference by this Court.

¶32

Analysis of Legal Provisions of Law:-

¶33

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.

¶34

For proper appraisal of the matter in controversy, it would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 65 & 66 of the Evidence Act, which read as under:-

¶35

“ 65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. — Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:-

¶36

(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power— of the person against whom the

¶37

(6 of 17)

¶38

[CW-2565/2024]

¶39

document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;

¶40

(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;

¶41

(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;

¶42

(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;

¶43

(e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;

¶44

(f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence;

¶45

(g) when the originals consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.

¶46

In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible.

¶47

In case (b), the written admission is admissible.

¶48

In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.

¶49

In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.

¶50

66. Rules as to notice to produce - Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in section 65, clause (a), shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, [or to his attorney or pleader] such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case:

¶51

(7 of 17)

¶52

[CW-2565/2024]

¶53

Provided that such notice shall not be required in order to render secondary evidence admissible in any of the following cases, or in any other case in which the Court thinks fit to dispense with it:—

¶54

(1) when the document to be proved is itself a notice; (2) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that he will be required to produce it; (3) when it appears or is proved that the adverse party has obtained possession of the original by fraud or force;

¶55

(4) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in Court;

¶56

(5) when the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of the document;

¶57

(6) when the person in possession of the document is out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court.”

¶58

A perusal of Section 65 makes it clear that secondary evidence may be given with regard to existence, condition or the contents of a document when the original is shown or appears to be in possession or power against whom the document is sought to be produced, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after notice mentioned in Section 66 such person does not produce it. It is a settled position of law that for secondary evidence to be admitted foundational evidence has to be given being the reasons as to why the original Evidence has not been furnished.

¶59

The issue arising out of this matter is almost similar to facts and circumstances which have been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashok Dulichand Vs. Madahavlal Dube and Anr . Reported in 1976 (1) SCR 246 , and it was held as under :-

¶60

“According to Clause (a) of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original is shown or appears to be in possession or power of the person against whom the document is

¶61

(8 of 17)

¶62

[CW-2565/2024]

¶63

sought to be proved or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66 such person does not produce it. Clauses (b) to (g) of Section 65 specify some other contingencies wherein secondary evidence relating to a document may be given.”

¶64

In the matter of Rakesh Mohindra vs. Anita Beri and Ors. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 483 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-

¶65

“15. The preconditions for leading secondary evidence are that such original documents could not be produced by the party relying upon such documents in spite of best efforts, unable to produce the same which is beyond their control. The party sought to produce secondary evidence must establish for the nonproduction of primary evidence. Unless, it is established that the original documents is lost or destroyed or is being deliberately withheld by the party in respect of that document sought to be used, secondary evidence in respect of that document cannot accepted.”

¶66

It is trite law that under the Evidence Act, 1872 facts have to be established by primary evidence and secondary evidence is only an exception to the rule for which foundational facts have to be established to account for the existence of the primary evidence. In the case of H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs Vs. A. Ramalingam reported in (2011) 4 SCC 240 , the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that where original documents are not produced without a plausible reason and factual foundation for laying secondary evidence is not established it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence.

¶67

Primary and Secondary Evidence stands explained by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya reported in (2004) 8 SCC 270 as

¶68

[CW-2565/2024]

¶69

(9 of 17)

¶70

the former being evidence that the law requires to be given first, the latter being evidence that may be given in the absence of that original evidence when a proper explanation of its absence has been given. The terms "primary and secondary evidence" apply to the kinds of proof that may be given to the contents of a document, irrespective of the purpose for which such contents, when proved, may be received.

¶71

Section 63 of the Evidence Act gives an exhaustive definition declaring that secondary evidence "means and includes" the five kinds of evidence mentioned therein. Section 65 of the Evidence Act allows secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition, or contents of documents under the circumstances therein mentioned. It provides for the circumstances in which secondary evidence can be used when the original document is unavailable or inaccessible. It is imperative to adhere to the principles outlined in these sections, including the proper documentation and authentication, to successfully produce secondary evidence in legal proceedings.

¶72

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles relevant for examining the admissibility of Secondary Evidence in the case of Vijay vs. Union of India reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1022 . The following principles have been laid down in para 33.1 to 33.9 which are reproduced as under:-

¶73

“33.1 Law requires the best evidence to be given first, that is, primary evidence.

¶74

33.2 Section 63 of the Evidence Act provides a list of the kinds of documents that can be produced as secondary evidence, which is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence.

¶75

(10 of 17)

¶76

[CW-2565/2024]

¶77

33.3 If the original document is available, it has to be produced and proved in the manner prescribed for primary evidence. So long as the best evidence is within the possession or can be produced or can be reached, no inferior proof could be given.

¶78

33.4 A party must endeavor to adduce primary evidence of the contents, and only in exceptional cases will secondary evidence be admissible. The exceptions are designed to provide relief when a party is genuinely unable to produce the original through no fault of that party.

¶79

33.5 When the non-availability of a document is sufficiently and properly explained, then the secondary evidence can be allowed.

¶80

33.6 Secondary evidence could be given when the party cannot produce the original document for any reason not arising from his default or neglect.

¶81

33.7 When the copies are produced in the absence of the original document, they become good secondary evidence. Still, there must be foundational evidence that the alleged copy is a true copy of the original.

¶82

33.8 Before producing secondary evidence of the contents of a document, the non-production of the original must be accounted for in a manner that can bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section.

¶83

33.9 Mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit by the Court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. It has to be proved in accordance with the law.”

¶84

13. In the case of J. Yashoda v/s K. Shobha Rani reported in

¶85

(2007) 5 SCC 730 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as a general rule, Secondary Evidence is admissible only in absence of Primary Evidence. It has been held in para 7, 8 & 9, as under:-

¶86

“7. Secondary evidence, as a general rule is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. If the original itself is found to be inadmissible through failure of the party, who files it to prove it to be valid, the same party is not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of its contents.

¶87

(11 of 17)

¶88

[CW-2565/2024]

¶89

Essentially, secondary evidence is an evidence which may be given in the absence of that better evidence which law requires to be given first, when a proper explanation of its absence is given. The definition in Section 63 is exhaustive as the Section declares that secondary evidence "means and includes" and then follow the five kinds of secondary evidence.

¶90

The rule which is the most universal, namely that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit shall be produced, decides this objection that rule only means that, so long as the higher or superior evidence is within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. Section 65 deals with the proof of the contents of the documents tendered in evidence. In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. Under Section 64, documents are to be provided by primary evidence. Section 65, however permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned. The conditions laid down in the said Section must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section.”

¶91

The sum and substance of the above judgments is that a party who wishes to rely upon the contents of a document must adduce the primary evidence of the contents, and only in exceptional cases, the secondary evidence would be admissible. The Secondary Evidence of the contents of document is admissible only if the original document is not in existence or not available.

¶92

Discussions and Reasonings:-

¶93

Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, it is admitted case of the plaintiff that the original Will dated 22.06.1997 is lying in the suit No.704/2009 titled as Thakur Shri Govind Dev Ji v/s Anuj Kumar & Ors., pending before the court of the 3^rd Upper Civil Judge (CD), Mathura, and family settlement dated 01.01.1998 is

¶94

[CW-2565/2024]

¶95

(12 of 17)

¶96

lying in the suit No.527/2002 titled as Anuj Kumar v/s Anjan Kumar & Ors., pending before the Court of Civil Judge (JD), Mathura. This fact has also been admitted by the plaintiff in his application submitted before the Trial Judge under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC wherein a prayer was made for summoning of these two original documents from the Courts at Mathura.

¶97

The aforesaid application of the plaintiff was rejected by the learned Trial Judge vide order dated 20.11.2018, observing therein that since certified copies of both the Will as well as the Family Settlement have already been submitted on the record and summoning originals of the same would not be possible, without causing unreasonable delay, hence, these original documents were not summoned and the above application was rejected.

¶98

Thereafter, an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act was submitted by the plaintiff for leading Secondary Evidence for these two documents i.e., Will dated 22.06.1997 and Family Settlement dated 01.01.1998. The aforesaid application submitted by the plaintiff was allowed vide impugned order dated 02.08.2019 and the plaintiff was permitted to lead Secondary Evidence of these two documents and the case was posted for recording of the evidence of the plaintiff.

¶99

At this stage, when the evidence of plaintiff was recorded, an application was submitted by the defendant for not allowing these two documents i.e., Will and Family Settlement to be exhibited in evidence. The said application was rejected by the learned Trial Judge vide impugned order dated 10.01.2024 and the plaintiff was allowed to mark exhibit on the certified copies of these two

¶100

[CW-2565/2024]

¶101

(13 of 17)

¶102

documents and during the course of recording of the plaintiff’s evidence, these two documents were exhibited in evidence.

¶103

Now the question which remains for adjudication before the Court is when these two original documents i.e., Will as well as Family Settlement are in existence and the same are lying in the records of the suits pending before different Civil Courts of Mathura, whether the plaintiff can be allowed to lead Secondary Evidence for these two documents and whether the certified copies of these two documents can be marked as exhibits.

¶104

When it is an admitted case of the plaintiff that the primary evidence i.e., originals of these two documents i.e., Will dated 22.06.1997 and Family Settlement dated 01.01.1998 are lying in the records of two suits, pending before the Civil Courts at Mathura and the documents in question are moveable and the same are within the reach of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead Secondary Evidence for these two documents.

¶105

It is not the case of the plaintiff that inspite of the best efforts, he is unable to produce the originals of both the documents and the situation is beyond his control. Unless it is established that the original documents are lost or destroyed or are being deliberately withheld by the party in respect of the documents sought to be used, the Secondary Evidence of such document cannot be accepted.

¶106

Unless and until this fact is established on the record that the original documents cannot be produced with a plausible reason, it is not permissible for the Court to allow the plaintiff to adduce

¶107

[CW-2565/2024]

¶108

(14 of 17)

¶109

Secondary Evidence. Hence the impugned orders passed by the trial court are not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶110

Under such circumstances, the plaintiff is not remediless, he can avail the remedy available to him under the provisions contained under Order 13 Rule 9 CPC. He can get these two original documents (if so advised) i.e., original Family Settlement dated 01.01.1998 from the records of suit No.527/2002 titled as Anuj Kumar v/s Arjan Kumar from the Court of Civil Judge (J.D) Mathura and the original Will dated 22.06.1997 from the records of suit No.704/2009 titled as Thakur Sri Govind Dev Ji v/s Anuj Kumar, pending before the Court of 3^rd Upper Civil Judge (C.D) Mathura, after placing the certified copies of these two documents on the records of the above respective Courts.

¶111

The provision of return of admitted documents is there under Order 13 Rule 9 CPC and the same is reproduced as under:-

¶112

“O.13 R.9 – Return of admitted documents. -(1) Any person, whether a party to the Suit or not, desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in the suit and placed on the record shall, unless the document is impounded under rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same,—

¶113

(a) where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed, when the suit has been disposed of, and

¶114

(b) where the suit is one in which an appeal is allowed, when the court is satisfied that the time for preferring an appeal has elapsed and that no appeal has been preferred or, if an appeal has been preferred, when the appeal has been disposed of:

¶115

Provided that a document may be returned at any time earlier than that prescribed by this rule if the person applying there for—

¶116

(a) delivers to the proper officer for being substituted for the original,—

¶117

[CW-2565/2024]

¶118

(15 of 17)

¶119

(i) in the case of a party to the suit, a certified copy, and

¶120

(ii) in the case of any other person, and ordinary copy which has been examined, compared and certified in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (2) of rule 17 of Order VII, and

¶121

(b) undertakes to produce the original, if required to do so:

¶122

Provided also, that no document shall be returned which, by force of the decree, has become wholly void or useless.

¶123

(2) On the return of a document admitted in evidence, a receipt shall be given by the person receiving it.”

¶124

A reading of the above provision makes it clear that a person who produces a document in the court is entitled to receive / get back the same on the following circumstances:

¶125

A. Sub Rule 1(a) deals with a case where the suit has been disposed of, against which no appeal is provided.

¶126

B. Sub Rule 1(b) contemplates where the appeal is allowed, if no appeal is filed within the time stipulated for preferring the appeal or appeal has been filed and is disposed of.

¶127

C. The proviso of Sub Rule 1 deals with the case which does not fall under the above mentioned two circumstances and that the document can be returned at any time earlier than that prescribed by Sub Rule 1, if a party substitutes a certified copy of the document, which is already marked and undertakes to produce the original if required to do so.

¶128

On an application being made by a party under the above proviso of Order 13 Rule 9 CPC, the documents are necessarily returned if the application is in the proper form and the applicant is ready to comply with the conditions of substituting the certified

¶129

[CW-2565/2024]

¶130

(16 of 17)

¶131

copy of the document and undertaking to produce the original if required to do so.

¶132

The plaintiff can get the original Will as well as Family Settlement (if so advised) by moving appropriate application under Order 13 Rule 9 CPC before the Civil Courts at Mathura where these original documents are lying in two different suits, pending between the same parties, by placing the certified copies of these documents on the records of these two suits.

¶133

Conclusion :-

¶134

In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 02.08.2019 and 10.01.2024 passed by the Court below suffer from material illegality and patent errors of law and are not liable to be sustained and thus, hereby set aside. The instant writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed. The stay application and all the applications (pending if any) stands disposed of.

¶135

Needless to observe that merely admission in evidence and marking Exhibits on the Will and Family Settlement do not automatically prove the said documents unless they are proved by due process of law.

¶136

Before parting with the matter, in order to do complete justice between the parties, the Court below is expected to grant reasonable time to the plaintiff for procuring the original Will and Family Settlement from the records of the suits lying pending between the parties, before the Courts of 3^rd Additional Civil Judge

¶137

(17 of 17) [CW-2565/2024]

¶138

(C.D), Mathura and Civil Judge (J.D.), Mathura by way of filing appropriate application under Order 13 Rule 9 CPC, if so advised.

¶139

In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to pass any order as to costs.

¶140

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶141

DIKSHA MISHRA, JrPA

Anjan Kumar Goswami Son of (Late) Shri Pradyumn Kumar Dev Goswami v. Thakur Ji Shri Govind Dev Ji Maharaj Virajman City Palace

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjan Kumar Goswami Son of (Late) Shri Pradyumn Kumar Dev Goswami v. Thakur Ji Shri Govind Dev Ji Maharaj Virajman City Palace

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagchand Soni S/O Shri Kundan Mal Soni Vs Manakchand Jain S/O Late Shri Bhuralal Jain

Ramjilal S/O Panchya Vs Kallu S/O Sampoli

Kamlesh Jain Son of Sh. Ghanshyam Lal Vs D.B. (International) Stock Brokers Ltd.

Chen Raj Bothra Andanr Vs State of Raj and Ors.

M/S Prime Civil Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corp. Ltd.

Hussain Khan S/O Shri Khaddi Vs the State of Rajasthan