Disposed¶38

Vinod S/O Ramsawaroop v. Madan S/O Jagdish

Rajasthan HC15 Apr 2025CW/3924/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 65 Evidence Act secondary evidence; Section 66 Evidence Act application required first; Sub-Divisional Officer order dated 12.06.2024; Board of Revenue revision petition rejected; writ disposed with liberty to file Section 66 application within 15 days; Court concerned to decide expeditiously preferably within two months; stay application disposed; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file an application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act within 15 days; the Court concerned expected to decide it strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within two months thereafter. Stay application and all pending applications stand disposed of. ¶38

Vinod S/O Ramsawaroop Vs Madan S/O Jagdish — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner may be permitted to adduce/produce secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act when the original evidence/document is not in the petitioner's power and possession. +1 more

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Prior to filing the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, no application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act had been submitted; in the considered opinion of this Court, such application under Section 66 is required to be submitted first and is required to be decided by the Court below.

¶34

Key takeaways

The instant writ petition stands disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act.ratio¶38
If the petitioner submits the application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act within a period of 15 days from today, the Court concerned is expected to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months thereafter.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3924/2025, disposed of on 15/04/2025 (Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.). The petitioner had filed an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for leading evidence before the Sub-Divisional Officer; it was rejected vide order dated 12.06.2024, and the revision petition submitted against that rejection before the Board of Revenue was also rejected. Learned counsel contended that the original evidence/document was not in the petitioner's power and possession, hence secondary evidence was sought. Finding that no prior application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act had been made, the Court held that such application under Section 66 is required to be submitted first and decided by the Court below, and disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to file the Section 66 application within 15 days, expecting the Court concerned to decide it strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within two months thereafter; the stay application and all pending applications were also disposed of.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:16133]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3924/2025

¶4

Vinod S/o Ramsawaroop, Resident Of Kalyan Colony, Tonk Phatak Jaipur

¶5

Mukesh S/o Ramsawaroop, Resident Of Kalyan Colony, Tonk Phatak Jaipur

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Madan S/o Jagdish, Residing At Village Gopalpura, Tehsil Madhorajpura, District Jaipur Rural

¶9

Ramdayal S/o Jagdish, Residing At Village Gopalpura, Tehsil Madhorajpura, District Jaipur Rural

¶10

Suresh S/o Jagdish, Residing At Village Gopalpura, Tehsil Madhorajpura, District Jaipur Rural

¶11

Ramgopal S/o Shrinarayan, R/o Gopalpura Presently Residing At Plot No. 15, Brijlal Nagar, Malpura, District Tonk

¶12

Sharawan S/o Sheoshankar, Resident Of Gopalpura, Presently Residing At House No. 8, Tejaji Ka Bara, Gulab Vihar, Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur

¶13

Ramesh S/o Sheoshankar, Resident Of Gopalpura, Presently Residing At House No. 8, Tejaji Ka Bara, Gulab Vihar, Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur

¶14

Ramavatar S/o Sheoshankar, R/o Gopalpura, Presently Residing At Tukliya, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur

¶15

Sitaram S/o Ramvilas, R/o Dabeech Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Phagi District Jaipur

¶17

Nayab Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Madhorajpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶18

Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Branch Phage, District Jaipur

¶19

Sheela D/o Ramsawaroop, W/o Gopal, R/o 3/96, Housing Board, Tonk

¶20

Usha Sharma D/o Ramsawaroop, W/o Krishnagopal, R/o 13-A, Sudama Nagar, Glass Factory, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:16133]

[CW-3924/2025]

Santosh D/o Ramsawaroop, W/o Madanlal, R/o 5-6, Mahadev Wali, Nauji Ki Chowki Ke Pas, Tonk

¶25

Manju Sharma D/o Ramsawaroop, W/o Rambabu, R/o 223, Khatipura, Tara Nagar, Jaipur

¶26

Smt. Prem W/o Ramsawaroop, R/o Kalyan Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vipin Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶29

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶30

Order

¶31

15/04/2025

¶32

The petitioner filed an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for leading evidence before the Sub-Divisional Officer, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 12.06.2024 against which a revision petition was submitted before the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”), but the same was also rejected.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original evidence/ document is not in power and possession of the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, an application was submitted by him under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for permitting him to adduce/ produce the secondary evidence.

¶34

Perusal of the record indicates that prior to filing the aforesaid application, no application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act was submitted. In the considered opinion of this Court, such application under Section 66 is required to be submitted first which is required to be decided by the Court below.

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:16133]

[CW-3924/2025]

Keeping in view the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act. In case, such application is submitted by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today, it is expecting from the Court concerned to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months thereafter.

¶39

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶40

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶41

Aayush Sharma/28

Vinod S/O Ramsawaroop v. Madan S/O Jagdish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod S/O Ramsawaroop v. Madan S/O Jagdish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parsadi Vs Board of Revenue

V R High School Managing Committee Vs Collector

Temple Govind Dev Ji Maharaj Vs State of Rajasthan

Santosh Devi Sharma W/O Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Radha Rani Stone Crusher Vs State of Rajasthan

Digambar Dayal Chaturvedi S/O Shri Madan Lal Chaturvedi Vs the State of Rajasthan