SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1949 Supreme(Cal) 170

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harries, Sanker
SRIS CHANDRA NANDY - Appellant
Versus
ANNAPURNA RAY - Respondent
Civil Rule 819  Of  1949
Decided On : NOVEMBER 04, 1949

Advocates Appeared:
Amarendra Narayan Bagchi, CHANDRA SEKHAR SEN, LALA HEMANTA KUMAR, SITARAM BANERJEE

The need for admissible evidence before ordering examination of a witness on commission, and the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence such as a medical certificate in this context.

Headnote:

Medical Certificate - Examination of Witness on Commission - Admissibility of Medical Certificate

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a lady, had given evidence on commission in a suit, and her husband was considered an important witness. The defence sought to cross-examine the husband in open court, but an application was made for the husband's examination on commission, supported by a medical certificate suggesting his unfitness to give evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the medical certificate, which influenced the judge's decision to issue a commission, was inadmissible as hearsay evidence. The court set aside the order for examination on commission, stating that admissible evidence must be presented before such an order can be made.

Issues: The admissibility of a medical certificate as evidence, the requirement for admissible evidence before ordering examination on commission.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for admissible evidence before ordering examination on commission, highlighting the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence such as the medical certificate in this case.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge was set aside, and the rule was made absolute with costs.

HARRIES, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad directing that the evidence of the plaintiff's husband be taken on commission.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff who is a lady had already given evidence on commission in the suit and it is suggested that her husband was her legal adviser and a most important witness in the case. The defence were naturally anxious to cross examine this witness in open Court. But an application was made for the issue of a commission on the ground that the witness was unfit to give evidence.

( 3 ) AN affidavit of the plaintiff was filed in support of the application and a medical certificate of some medical practitioner was also tendered.

( 4 ) THERE can be no doubt that the learned Judge in coming to the conclusion that a commission should issue was influenced by this medical certificate. In his order he states :"heard the learned lawyers of both parties and perused the petition of the plaintiff of date supported by a medical certificate. Plaintiff's prayers for examination of her ailing husband on commission will be allowed. "

( 5 ) MR. Banerji on behalf of the petitioner has contended that this medical certificate was inadmissible. The medical man who gave the certificate did not swear an affidavit and a medical certificate tendered in this manner is the worst form of hearsay evidence. By tendering the certificate the plaintiff informs the Court what the doctor says in the matter with her husband. She certainly could not give evidence that a doctor had told her verbally what was in the certificate. Neither can she produce the certificate and make it evidence because it is merely what the doctor had told her in writing. The certificate is wholly inadmissible in evidence. That being so, the very basis of the Judge's order disappears and the order must consequently be set aside.

( 6 ) IT will be of course open to the plaintiff, if her husband is now unfit to give evidence, to make a fresh application. But before the Court makes an order for the examination of this witness on commission it must have before it admissible evidence. The doctor should be called so that the defence would have an opportunity of cross examining to test his evidence.

( 7 ) THE result, therefore, is that this petition is allowed and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside. The rule is made absolute with costs. Let the counter affidavit filed in Court to day be kept on the record.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top