[2025:RJ-JP:1208] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7039/2019 Rehan Mohammad Shah S/o Late Shri Shah Ikramuddin, Aged About 49 Years, R/o House No 3, Nana Ji Ka Bag, Fateh Teeba, Moti Dungari Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Sharda Sharma W/o Shri Shrawan Kumar Sharma, R/o Plot No. 21, Choudhary Colony, Kartarpura, Jaipur (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs- 1/1. Shrawan Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Madholal Ji Sharma, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 21, Choudhary Colony, Kartarpura, Jaipur. 1/2. Vikas Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Shrawan Kumar Sharma, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 21, Choudhary Colony, Kartarpura, Jaipur. 1/3. Vipul Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Shrawan Kumar Sharma, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 21, Choudhary Colony, Kartarpura, Jaipur. 2. Jaswant Singh Bhati S/o Shri Ratan Singh Bhati, R/o Plot No. B-85, Road No. 7, Nityanand Nagar, Gandhi Path, Jaipur. 3. Sub Registrar Ii, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 4. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Indra Circle, Jawahar Lal Neharu Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa For Respondent(s) : Ms. Neetu Bhansali HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 09 /01/2025 The present civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant’) against the [2025:RJ-JP:1208] (2 of 3) [CW-7039/2019] order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metro Jaipur in civil suit No. (297/2007) 150/14 whereby the trial Court partly disallowed the application filed by the defendant under Section 65 of Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that Smt. Sharda Sharma - original plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit against the defendant as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for declaration and permanent injunction in which the defendant filed an application before the trial Court under Section 65 of the Evidence Act and the trial Court vide order dated 27.11.2018 partly disallowed the application filed by the defendant and permitted to take on record certified copy of the court’s documents as mentioned in the para 2A to 2C of the application, as secondary evidence. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that defendant had given the notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act to the plaintiff (respondent Nos. 1/2 and 1/3) but they neither supplied the documents mentioned in the notice, nor replied the notice. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court committed an error in not taking on record rest of the documents as mentioned in the application filed by the defendant, as secondary evidence. Learned counsel further submits that these documents are necessary for adjudication of the present suit. Defendant had filed the photocopies of these documents, which are not in power and [2025:RJ-JP:1208] (3 of 3) [CW-7039/2019] possession of the defendant. So, the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendant and submitted that the trial Court rightly permitted to take on record certified copy of the the court’s documents as mentioned in para 2A to 2C of the application on record as secondary evidence. Rest of the documents were not necessary for adjudication of the present suit. So, the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the trial Court does not require any interference by this Court. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. While partly allowing the application filed by the defendant, the trial Court clearly observed that the documents mentioned in the para 2A to 2C of the application are necessary for adjudication of the present suit. Rest documents are not required for adjudication of the suit. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error in partly disallowing the application filed by the defendant. So, the present writ petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/85