Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Smt. Devi vs Lrs Of Narpat Chand And Ors on 22 November, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11088/2017
Lrs Of Smt. Devi W/o Morumal
----Petitioner
Versus
LRs of Nemi Chand & Ors.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11086/2017
Lrs Of Smt. Devi W/o Morumal
----Petitioner
Versus
Lrs of Narpat Chand & Ors.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit
Mr. Amit Mehta
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
22/11/2021
In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant
caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court,
for the safety of all concerned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents had brought in a suit for possession and damages
against the petitioner, in which, the petitioner filed an application
for summoning the Registrar to prove the issue No.5 under Order
16 Rule 1 of CPC. The purpose of summoning the Registrar was to
prove the DLC rate of Jalore district.
(Downloaded on 24/11/2021 at 08:47:36 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-11088/2017]
Learned counsel further submits that even if the presumption
is drawn in favour of the public document in question, then also
the respondents have a right to rebuttal and the petitioner to
prove it beyond a point would require the presence of the
Registrar concerned.
Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the
precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Madamanchi Ramappa & Anr. Vs. Muthaluru Bojjappa
reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1633 (V 50 C 245),
relevant portion of which reads as under:
"9. Aggrieved by the decree passed in his appeal by the District
Court, the respondent moved the High Court under section 100 C.
P. C., and his appear was heard by Sanjeeva Rao Nayudu J. The
learned judge emphasised the fact that no sale deed had been
produced by the appellants to prove their title, and then examined
the documentary evidence on which they relied. He was inclined to
hold that Ext. A-8 had not been proved at all and could not,
therefore, be receive(] in evidence. It has been fairly conceded by
Mr. Sastri for the respondent before us that this was plainly
erroneous in law. The docu- ment in question being a certified copy
of a public document need not have been proved by calling a
witness. Besides, no objection had been raised about the mode of
proof either in the trial Court or in the District Court. The learned
judge then examined the question as to whether the said document
was genuine, and he thought that it was a doubtful document and
no weight could be attached to it. A similar comment was made by
him in respect of the cist receipts on which both the courts of fact
had acted. In his opinion, the said documents were also not
genuine and could not be accepted as reliable. He then referred to
the fact that the appellants had offered security in proceedings
between the respondent and his judgment-debtor Boya Krishnappa,
and held that the said conduct destroyed the appellants' case; and,
he also relied on the fact that the leasedeeds produced by the
appellants had been disbelieved and that also weakened their case.
It is on these considerations that the learned judge set aside the
concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, allowed the
(Downloaded on 24/11/2021 at 08:47:36 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-11088/2017]
second appeal preferred by the respondent and directed that the
appellants' suit should be dismissed with costs throughout. It is the
validity of this decree which is challenged before us by the
appellants and the principal ground on which the challenge rests is
that in reversing concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts
below, the learned judge has clearly contravened the provisions of
s. 100 of the Code."
Learned counsel for the respondents have also relied upon
the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Rajasthan State
Road Transport Co. Vs. Devilal reported in RLW 1989(2)
Page 60, relevant portion of which reads as under:
"7. According to Section 74, Evidence Act, documents forming acts
or records of the acts of public officers are public documents.
Contents of public documents may be proved by producing their
certified copies vide Section 77, Evidence Act. It has been held in
M.M.Ramappa v. Mal Haha Uru Bovjappa(6), that if a document is a
certified copy of a public document, it needs not be proved by
calling a witness. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 27 of 1988, Pt.
Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of India (7) decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it has been observed as under:-
"We also hope and trust that our law courts will not
summon a medical professional to give evidence
unless the evidence is necessary and even men in
this profession are not made to wait and waste time
unnecessarily and it is known that our law courts
always have respect for the men in the medical
profession and they are called to give evidence when
necessary and attempts are made so that they may
not have to wait for long. We have no hasitation in
saying that it is expected of the members of the legal
profession which is the other honourable profession to
honour the persons in the medical profession and see
that they are called to give evidence so long as it is
not necessary. It is also expected that where the facts
are so clear it is expected that unnecessary
harassment of the members of the medical profession
either by way of requests for adjournments or by
cross-examination should be avoided so that the
apprehension that the men in the medical profession
have which prevents them from discharging their duty
to a suffering person who needs their assistance
utmost, is removed and a citizen needing the
(Downloaded on 24/11/2021 at 08:47:36 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-11088/2017]
assistance of a man in the medical profession
received it."
Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the DLC
rate of district Jalore is a public domain and once the certified
copy of the same has been obtained, the presence of the Registrar
would not be required as it would unnecessarily open a Pandora's
box whereby the authority making a necessary registration shall
be required to prove all the documents before it, and in this case,
all the more not important because the information of the DLC
rates in the district Jalore is in public doman, and thus, is a public
document.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing
the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited, this
Court is of the firm opinion that the documents, which are in the
public domain and which are in the context of an information for
public at large, need not be proved through the officer concerned,
if the certified copies of the same are available.
The reasons given by the learned court below are justifiable
and unless there was a dispute raised or a considerable rebuttal
made, the calling of officer in such public documents would be a
wasteful energy for the public authorities and the same cannot be
permitted.
In view of the above, no interference is called for in the
present writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.
Stay petition also stand dismissed accordingly.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
57-58 Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
