1 2025:CGHC:25155 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 522 of 2025  Sumitra D/o Late Pancham Singh Thakur W/o Daljeet Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Pandarpani Tehsil Kanker District - Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) (Defendant No. 2 ) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Ramdulari D/o Late Pancham Singh Thakur W/o Late Mahendra Singh Tahkur Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Pandarpani Tehsil Kanker District - Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) At Present R/o Near Risai Mata Mandir Ramsagarpara Dhamtari District- Dhamtari (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 2. Jahurabi Wd/o Shivkumar Thakur (Chauhan @ Lala Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Pandarpani Tehsil Kanker District - Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) (Defendant No. 1 ) 3. Shrimarti Nasima Bano Sheikhani W/o Arif Sheikhani Aged About 39 Years R/o Tikrapara Kanker Tehsil Kanker District - Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) (Defendant No. 3 ) 4. Shrimarti Farzana Bano Sheikhani W/o Mohammad Riyal Sheikhani Aged About 46 Years R/o Tikrapara Kanker Tehsil Kanker District - Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) (Defendant No. 4 5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Uttar Baster Kanker District - Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) (Defendant No. 5 ) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sobhit Koshta, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18. 06.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, District North Bastar SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.06.20 10:17:39 +0530 2 Kanker, whereby, an application moved by the petitioner/defendant No. 2 for leading secondary evidence has been rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration of title, partition and possession and declaration of sale deed dated 27.04.2012 as null and void. The suit property belongs to mother of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 & 2 namely Dhela Bai who died in the year 2006. It is pleaded that defendants No. 1 & 2 got mutated their names in the revenue records and share of Ramdulari was not provided to her. It is also pleaded that defendants No. 1 and 2 sold the suit property to the defendants No. 3 and 4. 3. The defendants field their written statement and denied the plaint averments. It is stated that with the consent of the plaintiff, the suit property was mutated in the names of defendants No. 1 and 2. 4. During the pendency of the Civil Suit, the petitioner/defendant No. 2 moved an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for leading secondary evidence on the ground that the consent letter was executed between the parties and the original document is lying with revenue Court and said application has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 09.04.205 on the ground that plaintiff has denied execution of consent letter and matter was reported to the concerned police station. It is further held that application has been moved at belated stage. It is further held that xerox copy of the consent letter can not be accepted as secondary evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the consent letter was executed between the parties and on the basis of consent letter names of defendants were mutated in the revenue records. He would further submit that original document is lying with revenue Court. He would also submit 3 that delay in filing application to lead secondary evidence cannot be a ground for rejection. He would pray to allow the instant petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the original consent letter is not in existence; therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to prove the contents of document through xerox copy, thus, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application. I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition, accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant