Gurgan Lal vs Vijay Kumar and Others

Mohd. Yamin, J.—This is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar dated 9.1.1999 whereby he refused a rent note to be tendered in evidence and exhibited, I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length.

Petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement dated 25.11.91 as well as for permanent injunction restraining defendants to alienate or transfer the disputed property. It was pleaded that the petitioner''s sons Ravinder Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar were doing the manufacturing work of silver and gold ornaments and that the dispute shop was taken in possession through rent Note dated 20.6.87 and the tenancy started on .1,7.87 initially for Rs.200/- per month which was later-on raised to Rs.30p/- per month. It was further averred that the 25.11.91, the owner agreed to sell the shop to the petitioner for Rs. 1,50,000/-, Hemchand who has expired filed written statement in which in para 3 he admitted that the dispute shop was in possession of the plaintiff''s sons ,as tenant but denied the other averments. After framing of the issues, plaintiffs started leading his evidence and when plaintiff himself was being examined he wanted to exhibit a rent note dated 20.6.87 executed in between the patties. Its admissibility was objected to and the court decided the same on 9. i .99 and refused to take the document.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the document was a carbon copy, yet in view of Prithi Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, it was admissible in evidence as primary evidence as it was prepared by mechanical process. Needless to say that this judgment of the Supreme Court may not be applicable to the facts of present case because there the injury report prepared by a doctor who had expired was considered in view of the provisions of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. However, Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited two judgments rendered in Ramkishore v. Koshore & Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 205/2001) decided on 26.2.2001 and Bharatpur Wholesale Cooperative Upbhokta Bhandar Ltd. v. Buddhi Lal Sharma & Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 241/2001 )decided on 8.3.2001 in which it was ordered that the document can be exhibited subject to just objections and the objections regarding the admissibility of the document may be raised at the time of final arguments. In these two citations, even notices were not issued to the opposite parties.

Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the document was not admissible in evidence in view of fact that it was simply a carbon copy and that no application to lead second evidence was filed. In view of above two citations of the co-ordinate Bench, the revision petition is hereby allowed and it is order that the document may be marked and objections about its admissibility in evidence and other objections relating to it may be raised at the time of final arguments,

Thus, the revision petition stands allowed to that extent. The order of the learned Additional District Judge is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.