Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopi Chand vs Bhanwar Lal & Anr on 22 February, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16574 / 2017
Gopi Chand S/o Shri Foosa Ram Vishnoi, R/o Chak Vijaysinghpura,
At Present Jhajhu Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Sugna Ram, By Caste Jat (Godara), R/o
Village Jhajhu, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner.
2. Barkat Ali S/o Shri Ajeemdeen, By Caste Musalman Teli, Village
Jhajhu, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Manoj Bhandari with Mr.Govind Suthar
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Hemant Dutt
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 22/02/2018
1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 22.3.2017 (Annex-4) passed by the learned Trial Court allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, order dated 24.11.2017 (Annex-8) rejecting the review application of the petitioner may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
Iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the application (Annex-2) filed by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC may kindly be dismissed with (2 of 3) [CW-16574/2017] costs and it may be declared that the documents which are sought to be taken on record, may not be treated as admissible in evidence.
iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the impugned order passed under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for production of documents, which are certified copies of certain public documents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an argument that the documents ought not to have been taken on record by exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, and at most, if the documents were to be photocopies of the public documents, then the same could have been done under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the copies of the documents in question were already on record, and after obtaining certified copies, the same were brought on record by exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC.
5. The learned court below has already observed that Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall also apply.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that (3 of 3) [CW-16574/2017] the learned court below has rightly recorded its satisfaction for taking the certified copies of the public documents on record, as the same is permissible under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Thus, for a mere technical reason, the impugned order cannot be held to be bad in law.
7. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Skant/-