Disposed

Gurdev Singh v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2013CR/360/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition, the Single Judge held that the trial of the issue regarding admissibility of secondary evidence does not end with its mere reception. The court emphasized that without justifying circumstances under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, a document cannot be relied upon, and objections can be raised even at final arguments.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is disposed of with directions that mere reception of secondary evidence does not conclude the issue and objections can be raised regarding lack of justifying circumstances under

Gurdev Singh Vs Union of India and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR No. 350 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 350 of 2013 Date of decision January 21, 2013

¶5

Surinder Singh

¶6

....... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Islam and others

¶9

........ Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶14

To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶15

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶16

The revision is against the order of the Court

¶17

below requesting for an expunction of certain documents from reckoning on the ground that the plaintiff had only produced the secondary evidence of the documents and the originals had not been filed. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the Court ordered expunction of a document which was a carbon copy, it has allowed for reception of other documents.

¶18

In my view, the entire exercise in challenge is a needless waste of time. The circumstances when secondary evidence is admissible are delineated under Section 65 of the Evidence Act that sets out seven situations (a) to (g) for reception of secondary evidence. There is adequate case law to the effect that

¶19

¶20

CR No. 350 of 2013

¶21

the mere reception of a document as evidence does not constitute proof. The Supreme Court held in Life Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Ram Pal Singh (2010) 4 SCC 491 that mere filing or exhibiting of a document in Court does not amount to proof of its contents. A document, not having been produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act, cannot be relied upon by Court. This Court has also affirmed the same principle in Kailash Devi Vs. Jai Kishan ILR (2005) P&H 115 . If a document is tendered by a plaintiff which is secondary evidence and the plaintiff does not make out a cause for any of the justifying circumstances, the fact that the document is received does not conclude the issue. It is a matter that could be tested in the cross examination of the plaintiff who tenders the document and elicited that none of the circumstances as set out under Section 65 exists. If it is elicited in the cross examination that the plaintiff had no case for production of secondary evidence, trial Court would be justified in rejection of this document out of reckoning. This can come at any one of the two stages viz., At the stage that the document is accepted in evidence or in the alternative at the time when the Court delivers a judgment after hearing the arguments. If the Court had expressly allowed for the reception of document but has not given justifying circumstances delineated in (a) to (g) under Section 65 , the defendant shall be competent to raise an objection with reference to inadmissibility of the document and the fact that the circumstances do not exist for reception of secondary evidence. This shall be keeping in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujrat

¶22

¶23

CR No. 350 of 2013

¶24

(2001) 3 SCC 1 , where the Supreme Court set out that except in a case where the document is insufficiently stamped and where the issue of reception of document without objection could result in the party forfeiting such objection under Section 36 of the Stamp Act, all other objections regarding the admissibility could be made even at the time of final arguments in the case. This, the Supreme Court itself has characterized, as a new practice which is necessary by exigency of time where Courts are burdened with large institution of cases and seamless progress of trial is not hampered by the objections, forcing the Court to give reasoned interim orders. If the trial Court could take a decision regarding admissibility and make it a part of the order, nothing further remains. However, if the Court has not done so, there could still be no prejudice for a defendant to claim that the document ought not to be received at the conclusion of arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court and yet another judgment of this Court to say that the secondary evidence could not have been relied upon. I have placed my own reasoning by relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court. It is not necessary to cite the decision referred to on behalf of the revision petitioner.

¶25

The revision petition is disposed of with the

¶26

above directions.

¶27

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶28

January 21, 2013 archana

Gurdev Singh v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdev Singh v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Parkash Vs Ram Piarai

Uger Sain Vs Rajinder Kumar and Ors.

Surinder Kaur & Anr. Vs Sukhjit Singh

Bal Kishan Garodia Vs M/S East India Fabrics Mfg Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Anuradha Tuteja Vs Lalit Tuteja

Nasib Singh and Ors. Vs Atma Singh and Ors.