Ashok Kumar vs Sh. Bhisham Singh

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has laid challenge to order, dated 02.12.2016, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. II, Rohru in Civil Suit No. 68-1 of 2013, whereby learned Court below has rejected the prayer of the present petitioner to exhibit the photographs, which as per the petitioner were admitted in the course of his cross-examination by the respondent/defendant.

A perusal of order, dated 02. 12.2016, demonstrates that the photographs in issue were not allowed to be exhibited by the learned Court below, on the ground that as the said photographs were claimed to be clicked from a digital camera, then in the absence of any Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? date being there upon the said photographs, the same could not be exhibited.

Mr. Suneet Goel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is per se not sustainable in law, as while passing the said order, learned Court below erred in not taking into consideration the statement of respondent/defendant, wherein the said photographs stood admitted by him.

On the other hand, Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court below, because in the absence of any date on the said photographs, learned Court below has rightly ordered that the same could not be exhibited.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the records, in my considered view, this petition deserves to be allowed. This is for the reason that a perusal of the cross-examination of defendant Sh. Bhisham Singh recorded on 06.10.2016 demonstrates that he had deposed in his cross-examination as under: "Jo photograph mujheje aaj dikhaya gaya hai usme wadi ka safety tank dikh raha, jo mauka ka hai. Khudh kaha safety tank daidh feet mere mai para hai"

During the course of arguments, veracity of this statement has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Taking into consideration the fact that the respondent/defendant had admitted the photographs in terms as have already been mentioned above, in my considered view, a hypertechnical approach was adopted by the learned Court below in passing the impugned order. Had it been the case that the photographs had not been admitted by the defendant, then obviously, the order so passed by the learned Court below would have been sustainable. But in view of the fact that the photographs had been admitted, it would have had been in the interest of justice that the learned Court below should have had allowed the said photographs to have been exhibited.

In view of above reasonings, this petition is allowed. Impugned order, dated 02.12.2016, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. II, Rohru in Civil Suit No. 68-1 of 2013 is quashed and set aside and the learned Court below is directed to take on record the photographs in issue, as Exhibits, in accordance with law. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 8th January, 2018. Registry is directed to forthwith return back the records of the case to the learned Court below. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also miscellaneous applications, if any.