[2024:RJ-JP:32515]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11757/2024
1. His Highness Sawai Tej Singh S/o Late Shri Jaisingh Ji,
Aged About 95 Years, R/o 18, Alwar House, Orangjeb
Road, New Delhi (Ex-Emperor Alwar State) Through
Amarraj Lal S/o Late Shri I.m. Lal, R/o N-128, Panchsheel
Park, New Delhi.
1/1 Jitendra Singh S/o Late Shri Yuvraj Pratap Singh, R/o
Phool Bagh Palace, Alwar, Tehsil And District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner/ Defendant
Versus
1. Banwarilal Singhal S/o Harish Chand Jain, Aged About 42
Years, R/o 2/33, Scheme No. 10 B, Alwar, Tehsil And
District Alwar At Present Residing At 17-A Moti Dungari,
Alwar, Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Rajesh Singhal S/o Shri Harish Chand Jain, Aged About
40 Years, R/o 2/33, Scheme No. 10-B, Alwar, Tehsil And
District Alwar, At Present Residing At 17-A, Moti Dungari,
Alwar, Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Respondents/ Plaintiffs
3. Smt. Meenakshi Kumari D/o Late Shri Yuvraj Pratap Singh
W/o Shri Suryaveer Singh, R/o Royal Academy, Near
Phool Bagh Palace, Alwar, Tehsil And District Alwar.
4. Yashwant Singh S/o Late Shri Sawai Tej Singh, Aged
About 68 Years, R/o 20, Orangjeb Road, New Delhi.
5. Smt. Pratap Kumari D/o Late Shri Sawai Tej Singh, Aged
About 71 Years, R/o F-164, Malayacha Marg,
Chanekyepuri, New Delhi (Since Deceased).
6. Smt. Mankumari D/o Late Shri Sawai Tej Singh, Aged
About 69 Years, W/o His Highness Shri Manohar Singh
Jadeja, Ranjeet Villas Palace, Rajkot, Gujarat.
7. Smt. Bhanukumari D/o Late Shri Sawai Tej Singh W/o
Late Parakarm Singh, Aged About 67 Years, R/o B-26,
Green Park, New Delhi- 110006, 18, Orangjeb Road, New
Delhi-110003.
8. Amarraj Lal S/o Late Shri I.m. Lal, R/o 128, Panchsheel
Park, New Delhi Power Of Attorney Holder His Highness
[2024:RJ-JP:32515] [CW-11757/2024]
(2 of 4)
Sawai Tej Singh S/o Late Shri Jai Singh Ji, Aged About 95
Years, R/o 18, Alwar House, Orangjeb Road, New Delhi
(Ex-Emperor Alwar State) (Since Deceased).
9. Shri Jagdish Thada Advocate, 7 B 19, Mahaveer Nagar-Iii
Kota, Raj., Guardian Ad Litem His Highness Sawai Tej
Singh S/o Late Shri Jai Singh Ji, Aged About 95 Years,
R/o 18, Alwar House, Orangjeb Road, New Delhi (Ex-
Emperor Alwar State).
----Proforma-Respondents/ Defendants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
31/07/2024
1. By way of filing instant writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenge has been made to the
interlocutory order dated 29.05.2024 passed in Civil Suit
No.34/10/11 (Banwarilal & Ors. Vs. His Highness Sawai Tej Singh)
by the Court of Additional District Judge No.3, Alwar, allowing
plaintiffs’ application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to
adduce the secondary evidence of two Power of Attorney dated
09.04.2005 and 30.09.2004.
2. Heard counsel for petitioner-defendant and perused the
record.
3. It appears from the record that respondents-plaintiffs
instituted civil suit for specific performance of an agreement dated
18.04.2005 against Mr. Sawai Tej Singh and stated that this
agreement to sell was executed by one Mr. Amarraj Lal, being
Power of Attorney holder of Mr. Sawai Tej Singh. Plaintiffs
produced two Power of Attorney dated 09.04.2005, notarized and
30.09.2004, registered Power of Attorney, allegedly executed by
[2024:RJ-JP:32515] [CW-11757/2024]
(3 of 4)
Mr. Sawai Tej Singh in favour of Mr. Amarraj Lal and during course
of evidence, since original Power of Attorney were not produced
on record, therefore, an application under Section 65 of the
Evidence Act was filed, seeking permission to adduce the
secondary evidence.
4. This application has been allowed by the trial Court vide
order impugned dated 29.05.2024.
5. The contention of counsel for petitioner-defendant is that
both Power of Attorney are fake, forged and collusive documents
as well as the earlier application filed by plaintiffs seeking
permission to produce the secondary evidence on such Power of
Attorney has already been dismissed by the trial Court vide order
dated 02.04.2024 (Annx.7), therefore, the trial Court committed
illegality and jurisdictional error by allowing to produce the
secondary evidence.
6. Having heard counsel for petitioner-defendant, this Court
finds that the trial Court has clearly observed in the order
impugned that at the time of passing the order dated 02.04.2024,
plaintiffs have not made compliance of the pre-requirements of
Sections 65 & 66 of the Evidence Act. Neither any notice was
given to respondents-defendants nor efforts were made to procure
the original Power of Attorney, but after passing of the order dated
02.04.2024, plaintiffs have made compliance of Sections 65 & 66
of the Evidence Act, therefore, the previous order dated
02.04.2024, does not operate as res judicata to consider and
allow the second application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
7. As far as objection of petitioner-defendant is that documents
of Power of Attorney are fake and forged, the trial Court has
[2024:RJ-JP:32515] [CW-11757/2024]
(4 of 4)
clearly observed that by allowing the secondary evidence and
exhibiting the Power of Attorney in evidence, does not waive such
objection and such objection can be considered by the trial Court
while considering documents of Power of Attorney on merits at the
time of deciding the suit.
8. In the opinion of this Court, the existence of the original
Power of Attorney have not been disputed by the petitioner-
defendant and the trial Court has considered that essential
ingredients before permitting the secondary evidence on the
Power of Attorney, have been complied with. The foundational
evidence, seeking permission to adduce the secondary evidence,
is available on record and after being satisfied with such
foundational evidence, the trial Court has granted permission for
the secondary evidence. In such view, the impugned order does
not suffer from any perversity and jurisdictional error, nor leads to
failure of justice.
9. For reasons stated hereinabove, this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not
find the present writ petition to be a fit case to interfere with the
impugned order dated 29.05.2024.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
11. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
RONAK JAIMAN/34