Delhi District Court
Hira Lal vs Dda & Ors on 18 July, 2012
Suit No. 440/2007
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI
CIVIL JUDGE (WEST): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 440/2007
Hira Lal
........Plaintiff
Versus
DDA & Ors.
....Defendants
Order:
Vide this order, I shall dispose off an application under Section
65 of Indian Evidence Act filed by defendant no. 1/ DDA.
1.By the present application DDA seeks to lead secondary evidence. It is stated that eviction proceedings under PP Act were initiated against the father of plaintiffs and notices under Section 7 (3) of PP Act were served upon defendant no. 4 on various dates. It is stated that DDA's defence is based upon these documents but the PP Act file is not traceable and DDA is unable to produce the same at this stage. It is also stated that the copies of the same are already part of judicial record. Further some of these documents have also been admitted by the plaintiff in his evidence.
2. In his reply, the plaintiff submits that eviction proceedings under PP Act were initiated but with an oblique motive. It is further stated that the present application can not be allowed because there is no such Hira Lal Vs. DDA 1/3 Suit No. 440/2007 document in the possession of DDA.
3. I have heard both the parties and have perused the record carefully.
4. It has been rightly pointed out by the plaintiff that the present application is vague for two reasons. Firstly, it does not specify the documents with respect to which secondary evidence is sought to be led. Secondly, the application does not state that the documents are lost but states that they can not be produced 'at this stage'.
The application does not refer to even one document that is sought to be proved by secondary evidence. There is only one mention in the application that the defendant wants to lead secondary evidence regarding documents relating to 'proceedings under PP Act'. It is well settled that an application under Section 65 Indian Evidence Act must be absolutely clear and accompanied with proper affidavit. I rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Khem Raj cited at AIR 2000 SC 1759 on this point.
The defendant's contention that they can not be brought at this stage do not establish that the same is lost or can not be produced within a reasonable time despite no fault or neglect of the defendant. In absence of full details in the application, the permission to lead secondary evidence can not be granted. As regards the documents, if any, being admitted by the plaintiff, defendant shall not be prejudiced Hira Lal Vs. DDA 2/3 Suit No. 440/2007 even if secondary evidence is not led as the same stand proved already. Accordingly, the application under Section 65 Indian Evidence Act is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court, Today on 18.07.2012.
(Richa Gusain Solanki) Civil Judge(West) THC, Delhi/ 18.07.2012 Hira Lal Vs. DDA 3/3