Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gereen Land Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Thr. ... vs Smt. Ashokrani on 7 February, 2020
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Misc. Petition No.6241/2019
(Green Land Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ashokrani and others)
Indore, Dated: 07/02/2020
Shri Anokhilal Kharol, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
By this misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, defendant No.1 in the suit has challenged order of the trial
Court dated 30/10/2019 whereby the application of the
respondent/plaintiff under Section 65 of the Evidence At has been
allowed and the respondent/plaintiff has been permitted to adduce the photocopies of the cheques as secondary evidence.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed an error in allowing the said application without appreciating that there is no reference of the photocopies of the said cheques in the plaint.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the trial Court has assigned due and proper reasons while allowing the application under Section 65 of the Act filed by the respondent. The respondent has filed the suit for declaring the sale deed dated 21/03/2015 as null and void as also recovery of the amount. The respondent had filed the application under Section 65 of the Act with the plea that the petitioner had given the post dated cheques as consideration for sale out of which, many of the cheques were dishonoured. It has been further pleaded that five original dishonoured cheques were lost, therefore, permission was sought to adduce the photocopies of those lost cheques as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Act. The trial Court has taken note of the fact that those five cheques are duly mentioned in the sale deed dated 02/08/2014 and the respondent had filed 2 the complaint made before the police in respect of those lost cheques and the originals of the cheques are not available with the respondent and in the aforesaid background, the trial Court had allowed the application under Section 65 of the Act. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is a well reasoned order which does not suffer from any patent illegality.
Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jai Singh and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another reported in 2010(9) SCC 385 while considering the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. Correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no case for interference in the impugned order of trial court is made out. The misc. petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge krjoshi Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI Date: 2020.02.11 11:54:23 +05'30'