Din Dayal vs Piyush and Others

Alok Singh, J.—Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.08.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, whereby the application moved by the defendant No. 1-petitioner herein seeking permission to lead secondary evidence to prove photostat copy of Rapat Roznamcha, was dismissed.

The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction with the allegations that plaintiff is owner in possession of the substantial property in Bhiwani as mentioned in the plaint. Defendant No. 2 is in possession of the house as tenant under the plaintiff, whereas defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are in possession of shop under the plaintiff. Further contention of the plaintiff is that in the month of August, 2002, plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1 -petitioner herein on the basis of some false, fabricated documents has got his name entered in the assessment record of the Municipal Council, Bhiwani, over the room in question. It has further been contended in the plaint that defendant has no concern with the property in question nor he is in possession of the said property.

Defendant No. 1 - petitioner herein has filed written statement refuting the allegations made in the plaint. Defendant No. 1 is claiming himself as tenant and is in possession of the property in question.

Learned Counsel for the defendant No. 1- petitioner has vehemently argued that Shiv Parkash son of Baseshar Lal Mahajan has lodged a rapat with the Police Station City Bhiwani, stating therein that defendant No. 1 - petitioner herein is in possession of the room in question. Learned Counsel for the defendant No. 1 - petitioner further states that Shiv Parkash, who has lodged the rapat with the police, is the son of defendant No. 3 in present case, hence, any admission made by Shiv Parkash in the rapat admitting the possession of the defendant over the room in question is relevant.

I do not agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Any admission made by the son of the defendant cannot bind any defendant, hence, in the opinion of this Court, defendant No. 1 - petitioner herein cannot be permitted to prove the admission made by the son of the defendant No. 3 in the rapat in question. Document is irrelevant.

In the opinion of this Court, the secondary evidence can be permitted only when Court finds it relevant and is required for the fair adjudication of the present case. Any admission made by Shiv Parkash son of defendant No. 3 cannot bind defendant No. 3 and the plaintiff. Document sought to be proved by secondary evidence is irrelevant.

Petition is dismissed.