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

1976 Supreme(Del) 2

High Court Of Delhi
SURAJ PARKASH VAID - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 169 of 1975
Decided On : 01/12/1976

Advocates Appeared:
A.BHATTACHARYA, D.N.NIJHAVAN

The documents to be admitted or denied under Order 12 Rules 2 and 3a of the Code of Civil Procedure must be proper documents on which the court can legally act and which can be legally adduced in evidence.

Headnote:

ADMISSION AND DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS - ORDER 12 RULES 2 AND 3A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - INTERPRETATION - DOCUMENTS TO BE ADMITTED OR DENIED MUST BE PROPER DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THE COURT CAN LEGALLY ACT AND WHICH CAN BE LEGALLY ADDUCED IN EVIDENCE.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the Union of India, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, and the Chief Justice of India for recovery of damages for wrongful reduction in rank in the employment of the petitioner in the Supreme Court. The petitioner filed unsigned copies of a number of documents from the file of another suit and moved two applications before the court below praying that under Order 12 Rule 2, 3a of the Code, the defendants be called upon to admit and/or deny the documents.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the documents filed must be certified copies from the records of the other suit before the defendants could be called upon to admit and/or deny them and under the circumstances the court gave another opportunity to the plaintiff to file authenticated copies of the documents, but it did not finally dispose of the applications pending the filing of the said documents.

Issues: Whether the documents filed by the plaintiff were proper documents which could be admitted or denied by the defendants under Order 12 Rules 2 and 3a of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the documents which the party can call upon the opposite party to admit and/or deny must be the proper documents the production of which is by its very nature not forbidden and on which a Court can legally act and which can legally be adduced in evidence. In the instant case, the law prohibits production of the copy except certified copy as secondary evidence of the original and so the petitioner cannot call upon the opposite party to admit or deny any other kind of secondary evidence.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed and the order calling upon the petitioner to file certified copies of the documents was upheld.

B C. Misra, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, dated 15th October, 1974, by which he has declined the request of the plaintiff to order the defendants to admit and/or deny the documents under Order 12 Rule 2 of the Code while the learned Judge has directed the plaintiff to produce their certified copies.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has instituted the suit giving rise to the revision against the Union of India, the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India for recovery of Rs. 6. 000. 00 as damages for wrongful reduction in rank in the employment of the petitioner in the Supreme Court. The petitioner was reduced in rank and then finally removed from service. Another suit was instituted by the petitioner attacking the aforesaid two orders. I am told that the court of first instance dismissed the said suit, but the lower appellate court held that the removal from service was valid, while the reduction in rank was legally infirm. I am also informed that feeling aggrieved by the said decree, the plaintiff petitioner has instituted a second appeal in this court in which he has challenged the decree upholding his removal from service. In view of these circumstances, the present suit has been instituted on 30th September, 1970 claiming damages for wrongful reduction in rank while the other is still pending.

( 3 ) IT appears that a number of documents were filed in the aforesaid suit (which is pending in second appeal in this court ). The petitioner in the instant suit has filed unsigned copies of a number of documents from the said file and has moved two applications before the court below praying that under Order 12 Rule 2, 3a of the Code, the defendants be called upon to admit and/or deny the documents. The applications also appeared to be headed under Order 12 Rule 4 and Order 17 Rule 3, but the counsel for the petitioner is unable to state if the said provisions of law have got any relevance to the subject matter raised in the revision.

( 4 ) THE applications were opposed by the defendants and it was averred that the documents filed were neither originals nor certified copies not did the defendants possess them (with a few exception), and so they could not be put to the defendants for the purpose of admission and or denial. With regard to production of documents, it was contended that the proper procedure for discovery and inspection had not been followed. On the merits, it was urged that the defendants had very few letters of the plaintiff in their possession, which they could admit and or deny ; then the court ordered the defendants to produce documents, they possessed,

( 5 ) WITH regard to admission and/or denial of the unsigned copies of the documents, the court upheld the objection of the defendants- respondents that the documents filed must be certified copies from the records of the other suit before the defendants could be called upon to admit and/or deny them and under the circumstances the court gave another opportunity to the plaintiff to file authenticated copies of the documents, but it did not finally dispose of the applications pending the filing of the said documents.

( 6 ) MR. Nijhawan has relied upon the provisions of Order 12 Rules 2 and 3a of the Code in support of his contention and he has urged that the documents, which the opposite party can be called upon to admit and/or deny need not be a certified copy and if the party admits the same, document will be read in evidence and if the party denies the document the costs will be borne by the opposite party.

( 7 ) ORDER 12 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows :-

"2. Either party may call upon the other party to admit any document saving all just exceptions ; and in case of refusal or neglect to admit, after such notice, the costs of proving any such document shall be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing,









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