[2025:RJ-JP:41291] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4231/2024 1. Shri Krishna Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Ramnarayan, R/o 1/492, Morkutee, Khadi Gramodyog Road, Saleem Kaagzi Marg, Sanganer, Jaipur- 302029 and Owner - Manglam Arts Showroom No. 9 And 10, Govind Nagar East, Amer Road, Outside Zoravar Singh Gate, Jaipur (Since Deceased). 2. Ashok Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Ramnarayan, aged about 75 Years, R/o 1/492, Morkutee, Khadi Gramodyog Road, Saleem Kaagzi Marg, Sanganer, Jaipur- 302029 and Owner - Manglam Arts Showroom No. 9 And 10, Govind Nagar East, Amer Road, Outside Zoravar Singh Gate, Jaipur 3. Ravindra Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Ramnarayan, aged about 71 Years, R/o 1/492, Morkutee, Khadi Gramodyog Road, Saleem Kaagzi Marg, Sanganer, Jaipur- 302029 and Owner - Manglam Arts Showroom No. 9 And 10, Govind Nagar East, Amer Road, Outside Zoravar Singh Gate, Jaipur 4. Rajendra Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Ramnarayan, aged about 66 Years, R/o 1/492, Morkutee, Khadi Gramodyog Road, Saleem Kaagzi Marg, Sanganer, Jaipur- 302029 and Owner - Manglam Arts Showroom No. 9 And 10, Govind Nagar East, Amer Road, Outside Zoravar Singh Gate, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus Smt. Mohni Devi Badaya W/o Shri Kailash Chand Badaya, aged about 70 Years, Resident Of - 9, 10 Krishna Marg, Govind Nagar East, Amer Road, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mudit Singhvi Ms. Priya Khushalani Mr. Siddhant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Saraswat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 10/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, whereby the application dated 25.08.2023 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below seriously erred in rejecting the application without considering the fact that unless the requisite certificate under [2025:RJ-JP:41291] (2 of 2) [CW-4231/2024] section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is filed, no document procured through an electronic device is admissible in evidence or can be exhibited. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the objection so raised and application so filed by the petitioner is pre-mature as the documents have not been exhibited as yet. He further submits that prior to exhibiting the said documents, the respondent would definitely file the necessary certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972. 4. After arguing at some length, counsel for the parties are ad idem that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the learned trial Court to re-decide the objection afresh. 5. Heard. 6. In view of the above consensus arrived at between the parties, the case is relegated back to the learned Rent Tribunal with the direction to re-decide the objections so raised by the petitioner, in accordance with law without being influenced by the findings recorded in the impugned order dated 01.02.2024. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 8. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /11