Laxmi Devi vs Addl. District and Sessions Judge

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—The petitioners have preferred this writ petition against the order dt. 04.05.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar (for short ''the trial Court'' hereinafter), whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application of the respondent-plaintiffs moved under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act and allowed them to produce certain documents in secondary evidence. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that while passing of the impugned order, the learned trial Court has given the finding that agreement dt. 11.09.1979 cannot be said to be forged, whereas the petitioners have specifically raised objections regarding the genuineness of the said agreement. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the impugned order, the learned trial Court has also observed that the Ikrarnama sought to be produced in the secondary evidence is of the year 1982 i.e. prior to year 1989 and at that time, the registration of the Ikrarnama was not required, therefore, there is no impediment in taking of the same on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have objected the admissibility of the Ikrarnama of 1982 in evidence on account of its non-registration but when with the aforesaid observation, the trial Court has held that the said Ikrarnama is admissible in evidence, the right of the petitioners of questioning the admissibility of the said document in evidence has been curtailed.

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order.

It is true that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has made certain remarks in respect of Ikrarnama dt. 11.09.1979 and Ikrarnama pertaining to the year 1982, however, the said observations of the learned trial Court cannot preclude the petitioners from questioning the genuineness of the Ikrarnama dt. 11.09.1979 as well as of admissibility of the Ikrarnama pertaining to the year 1982 during the course of trial. It is always open for the petitioners to raise objections regarding the genuineness of the said Ikrarnama of year 1979 and to prove before the Court that in absence of the registration of the Ikrarnama of year 1982, the same is not admissible in evidence. In such circumstances, no interference is called for. Hence, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.