Delhi High Court
Arati Bhargava (Ms.) vs Shri Kavi Kumar Bhargava (Deceased) ... on 10 May, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR1999DELHI280, ILR1999DELHI498, (1999)122PLR14, AIR 1999 DELHI 280, 1999 (4) ADDEL 45, (1999) 50 DRJ 158, (1999) 3 CIVILCOURTC 377, (2000) 2 LANDLR 597, (1999) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 488, (1999) 79 DLT 563, (1999) ILR 2 P&H 133, (1999) 114 STC 282, (1999) 4 RECCIVR 307, (1999) 122 PUN LR 14
ORDER Mohd. Shamim, J.
1. This is an application by the plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to place on record an application moved by Shri K.K. Bhargava on March 20, 1990 before the Assessor and Collector, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and to prove the same by summoning the record from the office of the Assessor & Collector, Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
2. The application has been vehemently opposed by the defendant.
3. It has been urged for and on behalf of the plaintiff that the case of the plaintiff is that she is a tenant on the first and the second floor of the property bearing No. E 15-16, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi. She was inducted as a tenant herein by her mother Mrs. Savitri Devi Bhargava on August 1, 1984, whereas this fact has been denied by the defendant. The plaintiff applied for a certified copy of the letter dated March 20, 1990 adverted to above, on September 2, 1998. A photocopy of the same has been issued from the record of the office of the Assessor and Collector. The plaintiff thus wants that the same be taken on record and be allowed to be proved by summoning the record from the office of the Assessor and Collector.
4. Learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the document which is sought to be produced is a photocopy the genuineness of which cannot be guaranteed. The same cannot be proved. It is inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the original. Shri K.K.Bhargav never wrote any letter to the Assessor and Collector. It is a forged and fabricated document. The application is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at sufficient length and have very carefully examined their rival contentions and have given my anxious thoughts thereto.
6. The present suit was filed on September 22, 1990. The application under disposal was moved on September 4, 1998 when the statement of Ms. Arati Bhargava was being recorded. Thus the present application is highly belated inasmuch as it has been moved about 8 years after the institution of the present suit. No reason whatsoever was put forward by learned counsel for the plaintiff at the time of arguments on the present application as to why no effort was made earlier to secure a copy of the said application and to place the same on the file of this Court.
7. Furthermore, a close scrutiny of the letter dated September 2, 1998 which is addressed to the plaintiff by the Deputy Assessor and Collector, Central Zone, reveals that the letter dated March 20, 1990 which is sought to be filed on record is a photocopy. There is no stamp on the said letter. There is neither any signature nor the date when it was received by the Receipt Clerk. There is nothing to show as to what action was taken by the Municipal authorities on receipt of the said letter though the letter is dated March 20, 1990. Thus the said letter does not inspire confidence.
8. There is another aspect of the matter. It is a well settled principle of law that a photocopy of a copy is not admissible in evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. To the same effect are the observations of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court as reported in Ramgopal Naicker Muthukrishna Ayyar and another, . Thus if the said letter cannot be admitted in evidence, it would serve no useful purpose to take the same on the file of this Court.
9. In view of the above I do not find any force in the present application. It is hereby dismissed.