1 2025:CGHC:33555 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 655 of 2025 1. Rajvantin Bai W/o Pritamdas Joshi Aged About 61 Years R/o Village And Post Murmunda, Tahsil- Dongargarh, Distt- Rajnandgaon C.G. 2. Ganesh S/o Pritamdas Joshi Aged About 41 Years R/o Village And Post Murmunda, Tahsil- Dongargarh, Distt- Rajnandgaon C.G. 3. Sumitra D/o Pritamdas Joshi Aged About 43 Years R/o Village And Post Murmunda, Tahsil- Dongargarh, Distt- Rajnandgaon C.G. 4. Dhanesh Kumar S/o Pritamdas Joshi Aged About 44 Years R/o Village And Post Murmunda, Tahsil- Dongargarh, Distt- Rajnandgaon C.G. 5. Narmada W/o Ramratan Maitri Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Thakurtola, Post Somni, Police Station- Somni, Tahsil And Distt. Rajnadgaon C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Mallu Das S/o Pritam Das Joshi Aged About 50 Years R/o Plot No. 84, Bhawani Nagar, Punapur Road, Parti Nagpur (Maharashtra).] 2. Bhagat S/o Pritam Das Joshi Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Murmunda, Tahsil- Dongargarh, Distt- Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 17-07-2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order passed by the 2 learned Civil Judge–Junior Division, Dongargarh, District–Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 54-A/2022 dated 26.04.2025, whereby the application moved under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has been rejected. 3) Facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs [respondents] filed a suit for partition, separate possession and permanent injunction with regard to the property situated in Village Murmunda, District Rajnandgaon. It was pleaded that the suit property is the ancestral and a joint family property. Defendants [petitioners] filed a written statement and denied the plaint averments. They specifically stated that there was a partition in the year 2013, and the land was divided between parties. It was also stated that a partition was done in the presence of the village ‘Panchas’. Defendants moved an application under Section 65 of the Act, 1872, to prove the contents of the partition memo reduced into writing by the village ‘Panchas’. It was further stated in the application that the original document was lying with Shekudas S/o Manakdas [son of Village Patel], but the same was missing; therefore, an application was moved to prove the contents of that document by leading secondary evidence. Plaintiffs filed a reply to the application, and the learned Trial Court rejected the same on the ground that a xerox copy of the document was not compared with the original; therefore, it cannot be allowed. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a partition of the suit property in the presence of Village Panchas, and it was duly recorded into writing in a document which was in possession of Shekudas S/o Manakdas [Son of Village Patel]. He further submits that Shekudas had informed that the document is missing; therefore, the 3 occasion arose to prove the contents of that document by leading secondary evidence. He contends that the proposed document is a xerox copy of the original, and the defendants may be permitted to prove its contents. He prays to set-aside the order passed by the Trial Court dated 26.04.2025 and allow this petition. 5) Heard. 6) Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:- 63. Secondary evidence.–Secondary evidence means and includes – (1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained; (2) copies made from the original by the mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies; (3) copies made from or compared with the original; (4)counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them; (5)oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it. A bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that either party may be permitted to prove the contents of a document which is its certified copy given under the provisions of the law; copies made from the original by mechanical process whose accuracy can be ensured by comparing them; copies made from or compared with the original; counterparts of documents and oral accounts of the contents of a document. 7) In the present case, the petitioners moved an application to prove the xerox copy of the partition deed. It is stated in the application that the 4 original is missing, but there is no pleading in the application as to whether the xerox copy of the said document was made from the original or by mechanical process or whether it was ever compared with the original. 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court in the order impugned, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 9) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya