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

DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Sudesh Arora – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Raj Sagar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 41386/2019 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

C.R.P. 207/2019 & CM APPL.41385/2019 & 41387/2019

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 29.01.2019 whereby an application filed by the respondent under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC seeking to place on record certain additional documents has been allowed with cost of Rs.5000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the application respondent has substantially delayed the progress of the suit which was at the stage of final hearing and about one year passed in disposal of the application.

3. By the application under Order 8 Rule 1A, the respondent has sought to place on record certified copies of orders/judgments in different proceedings.

4. Certified copy of a judgment/order of a Court is admissible in evidence under Section 74 read with Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act without formal proof thereof.

5. Since the certified copy of a judgment/order of a Court is admissible in evidence, respondent could have even produced the same at the time of addressing arguments. No formal application under Order 8 Rule 1A was required to be filed by the respondent.

6.

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top