had failed to consider the same. In that case, the defendant summoned the original deposition of the handwriting expert which was recorded by the Rent Controller. He wanted to make use of that deposition on his behalf. The Court has considered the scope of Section 33 of the Evidence Act, then observed that Section 33 of the Act makes admissible evidence given by the witness in a proceeding and it was recorded by a person authorised by law. In a later stage of proceedings or in subsequent judicial proceedings, there is no dispute that the suit is subsequent judicial proceedings. If the other terms of this Section are satisfied, the evidence recorded by the Rent Controller would be admissible in the suit and then Court had held that unless and until there is compliance of Section 33 of the Evidence Act, the said evidence cannot be considered. The delay cannot be a reason for not complying with Section 33 of the Act and accordingly, allowed the revision. Learned counsel relying on the said judgment submits that the trial Court ought to have considered purport of Sections 33 and 77 of the Evidence Act and ought to have allowed the application filed by the wife.
