- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2008, whereby the learned trial court allowed the application of the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC for taking on record the judgment of the criminal court passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in Cr. Case No. 77/98, State v. Moti Lal.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff Mr. M.R. Singhvi submitted that since the judgment of the criminal court does not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 43 of the Evidence Act, therefore, it cannot be relied upon and being inadmissible in evidence could not be allowed to have been taken on record. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Onkarmal and Anr. v. Banwarilal and Ors., 1962 AIR(Raj) 127 and recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad,2009 AIR(SCW) 4587 and also a decision of this Court in the case of Abhishekh Fabrics v. Rajesh Kumar in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8197/2008 decided on 25.11.2008.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Nagori contended that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Behari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi and Ors., 1955 AIR(SC) 566, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though the judgment of the criminal court had a limited relevance only to show that there was a trial resulting in conviction and sentence in a particular case, it is open for the plaintiff to argue that the contents of that judgment as such wholly cannot be relied upon. This is a matter of argument, which is kept open by the learned trial court in the impugned order in para 4.2 itself. He, therefore, justified the allowing of the application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC.;