Shri Krishna Kumar Rawat S/O Shri Ramnarayan Vs Smt. Mohni Devi Badaya W/O Shri Kailash Chand Badaya — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shri Krishna Kumar Rawat S/O Shri Ramnarayan Vs Smt. Mohni Devi Badaya W/O Shri Kailash Chand Badaya — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of; case relegated back to the learned Rent Tribunal with direction to re-decide the objections raised by the petitioner in accordance with law, without being influenced by the findings recorded in the impugned order dated 01.02.2024; all other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Rent Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's application without considering that, unless the requisite certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is filed, no document procured through an electronic device is admissible in evidence or can be exhibited.

Court's answer

In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties (counsel being ad idem that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter remitted back), the case is relegated back to the learned Rent Tribunal with the direction to re-decide the objections raised by the petitioner in accordance with law, without being influenced by the findings recorded in the impugned order dated 01.02.2024.

Ratio / Principle

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of, and all other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4231/2024 (Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench; Maneesh Sharma, J.; decided 10/10/2025): Writ petition against order dated 01.02.2024 of the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II dismissing the petitioner's application dated 25.08.2023, wherein the petitioner contended that unless the requisite certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is filed, no document procured through an electronic device is admissible in evidence or can be exhibited. The respondent submitted the objection was premature as the documents had not yet been exhibited and undertook to file the necessary Section 65B certificate before exhibiting them. After arguing at some length, counsel for the parties were ad idem that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter remitted back to the trial court to re-decide the objection afresh. In view of the consensus, the Court relegated the case back to the learned Rent Tribunal with direction to re-decide the objections in accordance with law, without being influenced by the findings recorded in the impugned order; the writ petition and pending applications stood disposed of. The Section 65B question was not decided on merits.

[2025:RJ-JP:41291]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4231/2024

Shri Krishna Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Ramnarayan, R/o 1/492, Morkutee, Khadi Gramodyog Road, Saleem Kaagzi Marg, Sanganer, Jaipur- 302029 and Owner - Manglam Arts Showroom No. 9 And 10, Govind Nagar East, Amer Road, Outside Zoravar Singh Gate, Jaipur (Since Deceased).

Ashok Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Ramnarayan, aged about 75 Years, R/o 1/492, Morkutee, Khadi Gramodyog Road, Saleem Kaagzi Marg, Sanganer, Jaipur- 302029 and Owner - Manglam Arts Showroom No. 9 And 10, Govind Nagar East, Amer Road, Outside Zoravar Singh Gate, Jaipur

Ravindra Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Ramnarayan, aged about 71 Years, R/o 1/492, Morkutee, Khadi Gramodyog Road, Saleem Kaagzi Marg, Sanganer, Jaipur- 302029 and Owner - Manglam Arts Showroom No. 9 And 10, Govind Nagar East, Amer Road, Outside Zoravar Singh Gate, Jaipur

Rajendra Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Ramnarayan, aged about 66 Years, R/o 1/492, Morkutee, Khadi Gramodyog Road, Saleem Kaagzi Marg, Sanganer, Jaipur- 302029 and Owner - Manglam Arts Showroom No. 9 And 10, Govind Nagar East, Amer Road, Outside Zoravar Singh Gate, Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

Smt. Mohni Devi Badaya W/o Shri Kailash Chand Badaya, aged about 70 Years, Resident Of - 9, 10 Krishna Marg, Govind Nagar East, Amer Road, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ashok Mehta, Sr. Adv. with
	Mr. Mudit Singhvi
	Ms. Priya Khushalani
	Mr. Siddhant Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Saraswat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order

10/10/2025

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, whereby the application dated 25.08.2023 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below seriously erred in rejecting the application without considering the fact that unless the requisite certificate under

[2025:RJ-JP:41291]

[CW-4231/2024]

(2 of 2)

section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is filed, no document procured through an electronic device is admissible in evidence or can be exhibited.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the objection so raised and application so filed by the petitioner is pre-mature as the documents have not been exhibited as yet. He further submits that prior to exhibiting the said documents, the respondent would definitely file the necessary certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972.

After arguing at some length, counsel for the parties are ad idem that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the learned trial Court to re-decide the objection afresh.

Heard.

In view of the above consensus arrived at between the parties, the case is relegated back to the learned Rent Tribunal with the direction to re-decide the objections so raised by the petitioner, in accordance with law without being influenced by the findings recorded in the impugned order dated 01.02.2024.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(MANEESH SHARMA),J

SOURAV /11