JUDGMENT - 1. In the course of the examination-in-chief of the plaintiffs son Lalbhai Shah. Mr. M. H. Shah who appeared for the plaintiff sought to tender the originals of municipal bills-cum-receipts for the period October 1968 to March 1969 without proving those documents in the normal way, it being his contention that they were public documents and there should, therefore, be a presumption of genuineness in their favour. Mr. Dalal objected to those documents being tendered in evidence without being duly proved. The said bills-cum-receipts were then marked X-1 by me merely for the purpose of identification and I had reserved my ruling in regard to their admissibility as the point raised is one of frequent occurrence and of some importance.

2. It will be convenient at the outset to refer to the relevant sections of the Evidence Act. Section 61 of the Evidence Act provides that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence; and Section 62 tells us that primary evidence means document itself produced before the Court, which must and has always been construed to mean, the original of the document in question. Section 64 lays down that documents must b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document