Jamnalal Joshi & Ors vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 3 February, 2010

CW-6260/09-Jamnalal Joshi & Ors.Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.          Judgment dt.3.2.10

                                              1/2


              S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6260/2009
            Jamnalal Joshi & Ors.Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Date of order                            :                      3rd February, 2010

               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

Mr. Suresh Shrimali for the petitioners.
Mr. Promod Ahuja with
Mr. Moti Singh Rajpurohit for respondent No.4.

                                             -------

1.              This writ petition is directed against the impugned order

dated 2.4.2009 whereby the learned trial court has rejected the

application of the plaintiff petitioners under Section 65 of the

Evidence Act for permitting him to lead the secondary evidence in the

form of certain record of Panchayat Samiti.

2.              Learned court below has rejected the said application on

the ground that the petitioner-plaintiffs have been unnecessarily

moving such applications again again and in order to delay the trial.

The Court below has observed that on previous occasion also one

such application was rejected by the Court on 3.9.2008.

3.              Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Suresh Shrimali

tried to urge before this Court that record of the Panchayat Samiti was

not supplied earlier as they were found to be internal noting of

panchayat samiti and therefore, for the dispute of the land in question

for which a lease deed is in favour of the respondent No.4 and copy

cannot be made available to the petitioners.

4.              Having heard learned counsels, this Court is of the view

that there is no need to interfere with the impugned order under
 CW-6260/09-Jamnalal Joshi & Ors.Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.   Judgment dt.3.2.10

                                            2/2


Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the Panchayat

Samiti being a public body is expected in law to supply certified copy

of the public document upon the application. If such document can

be obtained and can be produced before the trial court there is no

occasion for permitting such evidence to be led as secondary

evidence. The learned trial court is justified in rejecting the said

application under Sec.65 of the Evidence Act.

5.              The writ petition is thus found to be devoid of merit.

The same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

                                                   [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J.

item No.22
babulal/