Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Kishore Kumar vs Naresh Kumar & Sons on 24 July, 2017

Author: Alok Sharma

Bench: Alok Sharma

                                        1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                            AT JAIPUR BENCH

                                   ORDER

                     (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6496/2017)

Kishore Kumar Son of Shri Manghan Mal, Proprietor Kumar Supari Bhandar
Wali Shop, Presently Electronic Shop, Oposiet New Sabji Mandi, Mohan Talkies
Road, Kota.

                                                         ----Petitioner/Defendant

                                    Versus

Naresh Kumar & Sons, HUF, Through Its Karta Shri Naresh Kumar Rajani Son
of Late Shri Shrichand Ji, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 897, Shastri Nagar,
Dadabadi, Kota.

                                                         ----Respondent/Plaintiff



Date of Order:                                             July 24, 2017.

                                  PRESENT
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

Mr. Rinesh Gupta, for the petitioner.

BY THE COURT:

Heard counsel for the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter `the tenant') and perused the impugned order dated 18-3-2017, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the tenant for taking on record the CD, of a purported conversation of the landlord and his tenant and its transcript allegedly relevant to the 2 outcome of the eviction petition.

The learned Tribunal has rightly held that for one it was for the applicant landlord to prove his case on the grounds agitated.

Additionally, I am of the considered view that document in electronic form unless accompanied by a certificate in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 was not admissible in evidence nor could be taken on record. It is not the petitioner's case that the CD sought to be brought on record was duly certified in terms of 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. Besides the Tribunal has held that the tenant would be free to put questions to the landlord on this aspect in his cross examination.

The impugned order is a balanced one and suffers neither from any perversity, patent illegality, misdirection in law or error of jurisdiction to warrant interference by this court under Article and 227 of the Constitution of India. No prejudice has been caused to the 3 tenant as he has an opportunity to cross examine the landlord on the aspects of alleged conversation in the CD stated to have a bearing on the genuineness of the landlord's case as set up in the eviction petition.

I find no force in the petition. The same is dismissed.

(Alok Sharma), J.

arn/ 4 All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.

Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.