w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Prem Kumari v/s Sushil Kumari and others

    Civil Revision Petition Nos. 318, 319 and 320 of 2000

    Decided On, 02 June 2000

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ARUN MADAN

    For the Petitioner:- Anurag Sharma, Adv.



Judgment Text


Arun Madan, J.

1. Since the defendant in the suits is one and the same and she has filed these three petitions raising common controversy, these petitions have been heard together at request and are being decided by this common order.

2. These three revision petitions though arise out of three impugned orders of same date 16-3-20

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

00 but having been passed in three different suit Nos. 432/97, 433/97 and 440/97 filed by different plaintiffs, namely Col. Mahavir Singh, Pratap Singh and Sushil Kumari respectively against Prem Kumari only for permanent injunction in respect of plot Nos. 154, 153 & 155 of the Officers Campus Scheme which are said to have been purchased by the plaintiffs from Sanyukt Grin Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd.

3. By the impugned orders, photocopy of allotment letters by which aforesaid plots were allotted by the aforesaid Samiti, were allowed by the learned trial Curt to be exhibited and taken on record during the course of recording of statement of the respective plaintiffs.

4. I have heard Shri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions and have perused the impugned orders. The only contention canvassed by Shri Sharma is that the allotment letters in question being not a recurring document ought not to have been allowed to be exhibited as the original document itself had to be exhibited and taken on record, and no secondary evidence could be permitted to be led subject to certain exceptional circumstances. Thus, the first and foremost controversy is whether impugned orders allowing the photo copy of allotment order to be exhibited, for the reasons stated therein suffer from illegality or material irregularity warranting invocation of revisional jurisdiction.

5. Having considered the rival contentions and reasons assigned in the impugned orders, prima facie I am of the opinion that these revision petitions being devoid of merit deserve to be dismissed. The trial Court observed that photo stat copies in dispute were duly compared and then produced prior to the issues being framed and that apart the plaintiffs at the time of recording statement were prepared to produce their originals. In these circumstances, the trial Court 'permitted the document to be exhibited in the interest of justice and thereafter had directed their originals to be impounded on the record till further orders, so as to use the originals in evidence with its permission. In my considered view, the reasons assigned in the impugned orders by the trial Court for having permitted photo stat copies, without their originals to be exhibited during recording of statement, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be held to be illegal or based on no sound legal proposition of law, nor the impugned orders warrant any interference by invoking revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned orders are sustainable in law.

6. As a result of the discussion made above, these civil revision petitions Nos. 318/2000, 319/2000 and 320/2000 are dismissed in limine. The impugned orders dated 16-3-2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) (West) Jaipur City in civil suit Nos. 440/97, 433/97 & 432/97 whereby photo copy of allotment letter was allowed to be exhibited and taken on record, are upheld. The trial Court is directed to proceed further and expeditiously decide the suit but not beyond six months from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order by sent to the trial Court in all the three suits.

O R