AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vineet Kothari, J.—This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 2.4.2009 whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application of the plaintiff petitioners u/s 65 of the Evidence Act for permitting him to lead the secondary evidence in the form of certain record of Panchayat Samiti.
Learned court below has rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner-plaintiffs have been unnecessarily moving such applications again again and in order to delay the trial. The Court below has observed that on previous occasion also one such application was rejected by the Court on 3.9.2008.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners Shri Suresh Shrimali tried to urge before this Court that record of the Panchayat Samiti was not supplied earlier as they were found to be internal noting of panchayat samiti and therefore, for the dispute of the land in question for which a lease deed is in favour of the respondent No. 4 and copy cannot be made available to the petitioners.
Having heard learned Counsels, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the Panchayat Samiti being a public body is expected in law to supply certified copy of the public document upon the application. If such document can be obtained and can be produced before the trial court there is no occasion for permitting such evidence to be led as secondary evidence. The learned trial court is justified in rejecting the said application u/s 65 of the Evidence Act
The writ petition is thus found to be devoid of merit the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.