Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Suklal Chandra Das S/o Nibaran Chandra Das – Appellant
Versus
Md. Idrish Ali S/o Late Abdul Zabbar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr G Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Ms S Bora, who appears on behalf of the respondent.
2. The present application has been filed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 31.08.2023, passed in Title Suit No. 153 of 2012, in connection with Petition No. 252/2022, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code), whereby the Learned Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Nagaon (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Learned Trial Court’), had allowed the said application.
3. It is relevant to take note of that the said application was filed at the stage of arguments. Both the parties duly admit that the suit was fixed for arguments in the year 2019. Thereupon, on 24.01.2022, the defendants No. 5 in the suit, who is the sole respondent herein, filed an application under Section 151 of the Code, to adduce additional evidence by bringing on record, a registered Sale Deed No. 4282/09, which the defendant No. 5 states that the number of the said deed of sale could be ascertained only on 15.10.2019, and the certified copy was ob
The court emphasized that the admissibility of additional evidence must follow procedural law, ensuring fairness and the right for opposing parties to challenge evidence presented.
The court upheld the Trial Court's discretion to permit additional evidence, emphasizing the requirement for cross-examination rights for the defendants to ensure procedural fairness and justice.
No application is required to be filed before leading secondary evidence, and the misconception that such application is necessary was condemned by the court.
The court established that secondary evidence is inadmissible without a foundational explanation for the absence of primary evidence, emphasizing strict adherence to evidentiary rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of due diligence in producing relevant documents and the discretion of the court in allowing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule....
The court ruled that while a certified copy of a sale deed is admissible as secondary evidence, it does not suffice to prove the execution of the deed, which must demonstrate intention and legal vali....
The court ruled that a trial court must provide an opportunity for additional evidence when procedural errors deny a plaintiff a fair hearing, emphasizing the case's prolonged duration warrants exped....
Admissibility of documents in court proceedings hinges on clear admissions in pleadings, validating secondary evidence despite objections regarding public or private document status under the Indian ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
