[2025:RJ-JP:16133] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3924/2025 1. Vinod S/o Ramsawaroop, Resident Of Kalyan Colony, Tonk Phatak Jaipur 2. Mukesh S/o Ramsawaroop, Resident Of Kalyan Colony, Tonk Phatak Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. Madan S/o Jagdish, Residing At Village Gopalpura, Tehsil Madhorajpura, District Jaipur Rural 2. Ramdayal S/o Jagdish, Residing At Village Gopalpura, Tehsil Madhorajpura, District Jaipur Rural 3. Suresh S/o Jagdish, Residing At Village Gopalpura, Tehsil Madhorajpura, District Jaipur Rural 4. Ramgopal S/o Shrinarayan, R/o Gopalpura Presently Residing At Plot No. 15, Brijlal Nagar, Malpura, District Tonk 5. Sharawan S/o Sheoshankar, Resident Of Gopalpura, Presently Residing At House No. 8, Tejaji Ka Bara, Gulab Vihar, Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 6. Ramesh S/o Sheoshankar, Resident Of Gopalpura, Presently Residing At House No. 8, Tejaji Ka Bara, Gulab Vihar, Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 7. Ramavatar S/o Sheoshankar, R/o Gopalpura, Presently Residing At Tukliya, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur 8. Sitaram S/o Ramvilas, R/o Dabeech Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur 9. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Phagi District Jaipur 10. Nayab Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Madhorajpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur 11. Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Branch Phage, District Jaipur 12. Sheela D/o Ramsawaroop, W/o Gopal, R/o 3/96, Housing Board, Tonk 13. Usha Sharma D/o Ramsawaroop, W/o Krishnagopal, R/o 13-A, Sudama Nagar, Glass Factory, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur [2025:RJ-JP:16133] (2 of 3) [CW-3924/2025] 14. Santosh D/o Ramsawaroop, W/o Madanlal, R/o 5-6, Mahadev Wali, Nauji Ki Chowki Ke Pas, Tonk 15. Manju Sharma D/o Ramsawaroop, W/o Rambabu, R/o 223, Khatipura, Tara Nagar, Jaipur 16. Smt. Prem W/o Ramsawaroop, R/o Kalyan Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vipin Sharma For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/04/2025 1. The petitioner filed an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for leading evidence before the Sub-Divisional Officer, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 12.06.2024 against which a revision petition was submitted before the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”), but the same was also rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original evidence/ document is not in power and possession of the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, an application was submitted by him under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for permitting him to adduce/ produce the secondary evidence. 3. Perusal of the record indicates that prior to filing the aforesaid application, no application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act was submitted. In the considered opinion of this Court, such application under Section 66 is required to be submitted first which is required to be decided by the Court below. [2025:RJ-JP:16133] (3 of 3) [CW-3924/2025] 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act. In case, such application is submitted by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today, it is expecting from the Court concerned to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months thereafter. 5. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/28