Prahlad Prasad Gupta vs Smt. Neha Pandey
2021 Latest Caselaw 1822 Chatt

                                                                     Page 1 of 2


                                                                         NAFR
                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        W.P.(227) No. 387 of 2021
1.    Prahlad Prasad Gupta, S/o Late Jhunnu Sao Gupta Aged About 61
      Years
2.    Smt. Chandrakala Gupta, W/o. Prahlad Gupta, aged about 59 years,
      Both are resident of Sitapur, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja
      Chhattisgarh.
                                                                ---- Petitioners
                                  Versus
1.    Smt. Neha Pandey, D/o. Rajkumar Pandey, aged about 23 years,
      Resident of Ambikapur Road, in front of Khadi Bhandar, Police
      Station and Tehsil Sitapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.
2.    Bharat Alumunium Co. Ltd. Through CEO, Balco Nagar, Korba
      District Korba Chhattisgarh.
                                                           ---- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board

17/08/2021

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been

brought being aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2021, passed by

the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja by rejecting

the application filed under Section 64 of Evidence Act.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

respondent No.1 exhibited some photographs in support of her

pleadings in defence. The stand of the petitioner/plaintiff is this that

the photographs exhibited are forged and morphed, therefore, they

are not admissible in evidence.

3. Considered on the submissions.

4. The stage of accepting and rejecting any evidence is at the stage of

judgment and the stage of deciding the suit, therefore, it is too early

to take any decision on the admissibility of any evidence. The case is

still at the stage of recording plaintiffs' evidence and the evidence of

defence to follow, therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs have all the

opportunity to produce, rebut the claim made by the respondents and

the evidence produced by the respondent and also the petitioners

have opportunity to raise objection on the admissibility of

photographs in evidence in the argument, at the final stage of

hearing.

5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with the observations made

here-in-above.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram