[2025:RJ-JP:28775] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9958/2025 1. Late Shri Banshilal, Major, Son Of Shri Jethmal, R/o Sadar Bazar, Kekdi (Since Deceased) Through Legal Representatives 1/1. Lali Devi W/o Late Banshilal, Resident Of Bohra Colony, Kekdi, Tehsil Kekdi District Ajmer 1/2. Mahavir S/o Late Banshilal, Resident Of Bohra Colony, Kekdi, Tehsil Kekdi, District Ajmer 1/3. Sunita D/o Late Banshilal, Resident Of Bohra Colony, Kekdi, Tehsil Kekdi, District Ajmer 1/4. Nandkishore S/o Late Banshilal, Resident Of Bohra Colony, Kekdi, Tehsil Kekdi, District Ajmer 1/5. Sitaram S/o Late Banshilal, Resident Of Bohra Colony, Kekdi, Tehsil Kekdi, District Ajmer 1/6. Shivji S/o Late Banshilal, Resident Of Bohra Colony, Kekdi, Tehsil Kekdi, District Ajmer ----Petitioners Versus 1. Nirmal Kumar S/o Late Chiranjilal Jain (Agarwal), Resident Of Thikana Ajmeri Gate Ke Pass, Sadar Bazar, Kekdi District Ajmer, Rajasthan 2. Pradeep Kumar S/o Late Chiranjilal Jain (Agrawal), Resident Of Thikana Ajmeri Gate Ke Pass, Sadar Bazar, Kekdi District Ajmer, Rajasthan 3. Anand Kumar S/o Late Chiranjilal Jain (Agarwal), Resident Of Thikana Ajmeri Gate Ke Pass, Sadar Bazar, Kekdi District Ajmer, Rajasthan 4. Smt. Nirmala D/o Late Chiranjilal Jain (Agarwal) Wife Of Shri Ganeshlal Jain, Residents Of Thikana Ajmeri Gate Ke Pass, Sadar Bazar, Kekdi District Ajmer, Rajasthan 5. Smt. Preeti D/o Late Chiranjilal Jain (Agarwal) Wife Of Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Resident Of Thikana Ajmeri Gate Ke Pass, Sadar Bazar. Kekdi District Ajmer, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 29/ 07/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:28775] (2 of 3) [CW-9958/2025] 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Kekri, Distt. Ajmer (Rajasthan), in Civil Suit No.52/2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, was dismissed on legally untenable grounds. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the application filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking permission to consider the photocopy of the receipt as secondary evidence, has been rejected. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the legal mandate and the factual circumstances under which the petitioners were constrained to rely upon secondary evidence. It is further contended that the rejection of the application is legally unsustainable and has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioners in the matter of fair adjudication of the case. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned and justified order after considering all relevant aspects. It is argued that the petitioners have failed to fulfill the necessary conditions required under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. 4. However, during the course of the hearing, both learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that, in the interest of justice, the petitioners may be permitted to file a fresh application [2025:RJ-JP:28775] (3 of 3) [CW-9958/2025] before the learned Trial Court for considering the certified photocopy of the receipt as a secondary evidence. 5. In view of the joint consensus and without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 1. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file a fresh application before the learned Trial Court for considering the certified photocopy of the receipt as a secondary evidence, in accordance with law. 2. Upon filing of such application, the learned Trial Court shall consider and decide the same afresh, in accordance with law, and after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, as expeditiously as possible. 6. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J SAHIL SONI /139