Dismissed

M/s Maha Laxmi Handloom Centre, a Partnership Firm v. Chandra Prakash Chowhan

Telangana HC1 Jul 2011CRP/1566/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the lower court's order allowing an unregistered rectification lease deed to be marked as secondary evidence. The Court relied on a Supreme Court precedent permitting tentative marking of documents with objection pending for final resolution.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No.1566 of 2011 is dismissed; no costs awarded.

M/s Maha Laxmi Handloom Centre, a Partnership Firm Vs… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1566 of 2011

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This revision is directed against the order dated 11.03.2011, passed by the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in I.A.No.2419 of 2007 in O.S.No.1217 of 2006, filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to mark xerox copy of rectification lease deed dated 19.03.2002, as secondary evidence.

¶5

2. Respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.1217 of 2006 for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. They state that when they handed over the original rectification lease deed to the petitioners/defendants for verification, they did not return the same. For production of the said document, they also got issued a registered notice dated 21.08.2007, to the defendants, who issued a reply dated 28.08.2007, stating that the original rectification lease deed is with the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the above said I.A. for the relief stated supra. Through the order impugned, the Court below allowed the said I.A., by receiving the Xerox copy of rectification lease deed dated 19.03.2002, as secondary evidence and permitting the plaintiffs to get the same marked in their evidence subject to objection in regard to its admissibility and genuineness and also directed the office to check and put up the said document with regard to stamp duty and

¶6

penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/defendants filed the present civil revision petition.

¶7

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Court below ought not to have allowed the I.A. as the rectification lease deed is not a registered document and the same cannot be received in evidence.

¶9

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the admissibility of the said document would be decided at the final disposal of the suit. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Apex Court in BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL v. STATE OF GUJARA T^[1] wherein it was held as under:

¶10

“ Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence, the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. There is no illegality in adopting such a course. The Court however made it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed”.

¶11

6. In this case, the parties are making rival allegations with regard to possession of the original rectification lease deed. It is not in dispute as to the existence of the said document. The defendants have raised an objection that the document in question is an unregistered one and it cannot be admissible in evidence. The Court below received the said document as secondary evidence subject to its admissibility. Secondary evidence is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. The defendants can raise their objection as to the admissibility of the document even after it has been marked. Further, as per the decision of the Apex Court cited supra, whenever an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of any document during the evidence, the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case. In the instant case, the Court below did the same and therefore, I find no infirmity in the order impugned.

¶12

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No

¶13

costs.

¶14

_____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

¶15

Date:01.07.2011 sj

¶16

[1] AIR 2001 SC 1158

M/s Maha Laxmi Handloom Centre, a Partnership Firm v. Chandra Prakash Chowhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Maha Laxmi Handloom Centre, a Partnership Firm v. Chandra Prakash Chowhan

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

Abbas Hussain Vs Mohammed Abdul Haq (died per L.Rs.)

Sri Laxmipat Bohra Vs Smt. Devi. G.Vangani (died) per L.Rs. 2 and 3

Smt.Meghana Gollamudi, W/o.Sanjeev Kumar Gollamudi Vs Sanjeev Kumar Gollamudi

B.M.Premraj Vs M.Chandra Mouli

Anwar Ahmed Vs M/s. Margadarsi Chits Pvt. Ltd., (Kukatpally)

Smt. K. Sri Rekha Vs Sri Kompella Vijay Krishna