2000 JTR(SC) 63
2000 1 AICLR 772 ; 2000 AIR(SC) 1759 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 1806 ; 2000 2 BBCJ(SC) 221 ; 2000 3 CivCC 14 ; 2001 2 ICC 542 ; 2000 ISJ(Banking) 424 ; 2000 2 JT 40 ; 2000 2 KLJ(NOC) 30 ; 2000 3 PLJR(SC) 149 ; 2000 9 SCC 241 ; 2000 KHC 1771 ; 2000 5 Supreme 125
2000(5) Supreme 125
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand, CJI., R.C. Lahoti & N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Khemraj & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12050 of 1999)
Decided on 10-1-2000
IMPORTANT POINT
Where application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence was not supported by any affidavit and averments in application were vague the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application.
Act Referred :EVIDENCE ACT : S.65
(A) The appeal pertains to the application of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original document is not produced. The trial Court and the High Court examined the procedural compliance of the application for producing a copy of a map as secondary evidence, assessing the sufficiency of the affidavit and the clarity of averments. The Courts evaluated whether the application met the evidentiary standards required to invoke Section 65.
(B) Key principles include the necessity of a proper affidavit supporting an application for secondary evidence, the requirement for averments to be clear and specific, and the discretion of the trial Court to reject non-compliant applications. The case also highlights the hierarchical review process, where the High Court's non-interference with the trial Court's order is given due weight, and the allowance of a fresh application on merits without prejudice to earlier orders.
Facts of the case:
An application was filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to produce a map as secondary evidence, accompanied by an attested copy. The trial Court rejected the application due to the lack of an affidavit and vague averments. The High Court declined to interfere, leading to a special leave appeal.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court and the High Court were found free of fault in their orders. However, to serve the interest of justice, the Court permitted the appellant to file a fresh application with proper documentation within a specified timeframe.
Issues:
Whether an application for secondary evidence under Section 65 is maintainable without an affidavit and with vague averments, and whether the trial Court correctly exercised its discretion in rejecting the application.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court emphasized procedural rigor in applications for secondary evidence, holding that compliance with statutory formalities is essential, while leaving room for reconsideration through a fresh application if the defects are remedied.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of, with no costs awarded, and the appellant is directed to file a fresh application within four weeks for independent adjudication.
(A) The appeal pertains to the application of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original document is not produced. The trial Court and the High Court examined the procedural compliance of the application for producing a copy of a map as secondary evidence, assessing the sufficiency of the affidavit and the clarity of averments. The Courts evaluated whether the application met the evidentiary standards required to invoke Section 65.
(B) Key principles include the necessity of a proper affidavit supporting an application for secondary evidence, the requirement for averments to be clear and specific, and the discretion of the trial Court to reject non-compliant applications. The case also highlights the hierarchical review process, where the High Court's non-interference with the trial Court's order is given due weight, and the allowance of a fresh application on merits without prejudice to earlier orders.
Facts of the case:
An application was filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to produce a map as secondary evidence, accompanied by an attested copy. The trial Court rejected the application due to the lack of an affidavit and vague averments. The High Court declined to interfere, leading to a special leave appeal.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court and the High Court were found free of fault in their orders. However, to serve the interest of justice, the Court permitted the appellant to file a fresh application with proper documentation within a specified timeframe.
Issues:
Whether an application for secondary evidence under Section 65 is maintainable without an affidavit and with vague averments, and whether the trial Court correctly exercised its discretion in rejecting the application.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court emphasized procedural rigor in applications for secondary evidence, holding that compliance with statutory formalities is essential, while leaving room for reconsideration through a fresh application if the defects are remedied.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of, with no costs awarded, and the appellant is directed to file a fresh application within four weeks for independent adjudication.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Though this case has a chequered history, but at this stage we are only concerned with an order made by the trial Court on 21st January, 1997 on an application filed by the appellants under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to produce secondary evidence in respect of a map, the attested copy of which had been filed with that application. The learned trial Court recorded that the application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was not supported by any affidavit and also that the averments contained in the application were vague. It was on account of these deficiencies that the learned trial Court rejected the application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The High Court, in revision, did not interfere with the order of the trial Court on 1.2.1999. Hence, the appeal by special leave.
3. In the face of the pleadings of the appellants and the defects noticed by the trial Court, no fault can be found with the orders of the trial Court or of the High Court. However, it appears appropriate to us, in the interest of justice, to permit the appellant to file a fresh application in the trial Court for seeking permission under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to lead secondary evidence supported by a proper affidavit and giving full details necessary to attract the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
4. In the event such an application is filed within four weeks, the same shall be disposed of afresh on its own merits, by the learned trial Court uninfluenced by its earlier order dated 21.1.1997 or the order of the High Court dated 1.2.1999.
5. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(C.R.) Appeal disposed of accordingly.
*************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Khemraj & Ors., 2000(5) Supreme 125 : 2000 (2) JT 40 : 2000 (1) All. Crl. L.R.772 : 2000 ISJ (Banking) 424 : AIR 2000 SCC 1759
00023