Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
  • Section 65 of the Evidence Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
  • Section 65 of the Evidence Act
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter arises from an application filed by the appellants under Section 65 of the Evidence Act seeking permission to produce secondary evidence of a map, an attested copy of which accompanied the application. On 21-01-1997, the trial court rejected the application, noting two defects: the absence of a supporting affidavit and the vagueness of the averments. The High Court, in revision, declined to interfere with the trial court’s order on 01-02-1999. The appellants then pursued an appeal by special leave. Leave was granted.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court observed that, given the appellants’ pleadings and the deficiencies identified by the trial court—namely, lack of a supporting affidavit and vague averments—there was no error in the orders of either the trial court or the High Court. At the same time, the court considered it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to allow the appellants an opportunity to correct those procedural defects. Specifically, the appellants were permitted to file a fresh application before the trial court under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, provided it is supported by a proper affidavit and contains full details necessary to attract Section 65. The court further directed that if such an application is filed within four weeks, the trial court must decide it afresh on its own merits, uninfluenced by the earlier order dated 21-01-1997 or the High Court’s order dated 01-02-1999.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

Implications:

  • The appellants are granted liberty to file a fresh, duly supported application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act within four weeks.
  • The trial court must consider any such application afresh on its merits, without being influenced by its previous rejection or the High Court’s affirmance.
  • No costs were awarded.
  • The order provides a procedural opportunity to rectify defects but sets no broader legal precedent beyond the case-specific directions.

    State Of Rajasthan And Others v. Khemraj And Others

    Order

    1. Leave granted.

    2. Though this case has a chequered history, but at this stage we are only concerned with an order made by the trial court on 21-1-1997 on an application filed by the appellants under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to produce secondary evidence in respect of a map, the attested copy of which had been filed with that application. The learned trial court recorded that the application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was not supported by any affidavit and also that the averments contained in the application were vague. It was on account of these deficiencies that the learned trial court rejected the application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The High Court, in revision, did not interfere with the order of the trial court on 1-2-1999. Hence, the appeal by special leave.

    3. In the face of the pleadings of the appellants and the defects noticed by the trial court, no fault can be found with the orders of the trial court or of the High Court. However, it appears appropriate to us, in the interest of justice, to permit the appellant to file a fresh application in the trial court for seeking permission under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to lead secondary evidence supported by a proper affidavit and giving full details necessary to attract the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

    4. In the event such an application is filed within four weeks, the same shall be disposed of afresh on its own merits, by the learned trial court uninfluenced by its earlier order dated 21-1-1997 or the order of the High Court dated 1-2-1999.

    5. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    State Of Rajasthan And Others v. Khemraj And Others
    (Jan 10, 2000)