1 CWP 4224/2008 & other cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4224/2008 Smt.Shashi Agrawal Versus Civil Judge (JD) Kota South and anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4225/2008 Suresh Chand Agrawal Versus Civil Judge (JD) Kota South and anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4226/2008 Smt.Vimla Mittal Versus Civil Judge (JD) Kota South and anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4227/2008 Salil Mittal Versus Civil Judge (JD) Kota South and anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4285/2008 Sanjeev Mittal Versus Civil Judge (JD) Kota South and anr. Date of order ::: May 02, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Shailesh Prakash Sharma, for the petitioners BY THE COURT By the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged orders on applications under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act whereby the document sought to be proved by producing secondary evidence, have been rejected by respective orders. Facts, in brief, of the case are that all the aforesaid writ 2 CWP 4224/2008 & other cases petitions, relate to the immovable property in respect of which the documents are not traceable after the death of the original allottee, therefore, the photo stat copy was filed with the prayer to produce secondary evidence. The court below has considered the established principle of law that the photo stat copy can be produced for seeking permission to produce secondary evidence but first the requirement of Sec.63 read with Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act is to be fulfilled. Since the requirement has not been fulfilled, therefore, the said applications have been rejected. Counsel for the petitioners submit that the documents are relating to Patta by the Gram Panchayat, Borawas/Daulatganj and record of which has now been transferred to the U.I.T. Kota. The counsel further submits that the photo stat copy is a genuine copy and the trial court has committed error in not allowing secondary evidence to be led. I have gone through record of the writ petitions and further considered submissions made by the counsel. In my view, the trial court has rightly held that the non- existence of the original document has not been established. I am further of the view that the documents are part of the record of Gram Panchayat which may be transferred to any other authority but still the remedy is available to the petitioner to apply for copy of the same and if not made available, then to apply for copy under the Right to 3 CWP 4224/2008 & other cases Information Act and the petitioner can also make a request to the Court to call for the record. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not want to interfere with the impugned orders at this stage. The writ petitions are disposed of. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA) J. गोpa ल