Allowed

Hukam Dev v. Chander Parkash

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Dec 2010CMPMO/72/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a special civil matter, set aside the Trial Court's order that rejected the petitioner's application to produce an invitation card alleged to be from a matrimonial ceremony in a suit concerning paternity. The Court allowed the petitioners to produce and prove the card but left its evidentiary value to be assessed based on evidence during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 23.3.2005 rejecting the invitation card was set aside; petitioners permitted to produce and prove the said card in the main suit.

Hukam Dev Vs Chander Parkash — Property and Title | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No.72 of 2005

¶3

Date of decision: 8.12.2010

Hukum Dev & ors.

…. Petitioners

Versus

Chander Parkash & ors.

¶8

….. Respondents

¶9

Coram:

¶10

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J.

¶11

Whether approved for reporting? No

¶12

For the petitioner: Mr.M.S.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate.

¶13

_____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)

¶14

Sh.Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondent No.2 has expired. In my view, there is no need to bring on record his legal representatives since respondent No.2 was only a defendant before the learned Trial Court and this petition will have no affect on his rights and it is upto the plaintiff to take steps for bringing on record his legal heirs in the main suit.

¶15

¶16

This petition is directed against the order dated

¶17

23.3.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kinnaur whereby the application of the petitioner was partly allowed and the prayer of the petitioner to produce on record the invitation card allegedly pertaining to the ‘Beldon’ ceremony of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was rejected.

¶18

The dispute in the case is with regard to the paternity of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein. The applicants-defendants filed an application under Order 8, Rule 1(3), CPC permitting them to place on record the voter lists of the area, in question, The defendants also wanted to place on record the invitation card which according to them pertained to the ‘Beldon’ ceremony of the plaintiff. Though the learned Trial Court permitted the voter lists to be placed on record but rejected the application so far as the invitation card was concerned on the ground that such invitation card could have been manufactured at a later stage.

¶19

In my view, the question as to whether the invitation card is genuine or not has to be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties. Merely

¶20

¶21

allowing a document to be placed on record does

¶22

not mean that the Court has accepted the genuineness of the document. It is for the party producing the document to show that this invitation card actually related to the ‘Beldon’ ceremony of the plaintiff and was got printed by a person who had some authority to get the same printed. The defendants shall have full opportunity to show that this document should not be replied upon.

¶23

In view of the above discussion, the order dated 23.3.2005 in so far as it rejects the production of the aforesaid invitation card is set aside. The defendants are permitted to produce and prove on record the said invitation card. It is however made clear that the learned Trial Court shall, on the evidence led before it, decide, what is the evidentiary value of this invitation card? Since the original suit was filed in the year 2003, the learned Trial Court shall endeavour to decide the same at the earliest and in any event not later than 31.12.2011. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 11.1.2011.

¶24

¶25

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid

¶26

terms. No order as to costs.

¶27

December 8, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge

Hukam Dev v. Chander Parkash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukam Dev v. Chander Parkash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vedwati Vs Balraj

Ranjit Singh Vs State

Dhian Singh Vs Mohan Lal

Kansh Raj Vs Gram Panchayat Pahloo

Saran Dass Vs State

Sohan Lal Vs Ratti Ram