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

1985 Supreme(Ker) 271

Judges : THOMAS
THATHA - Appellant
Versus
PARU - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No. 1632 of 1983-E
Decided On : 10/10/1985
Advocates Appeared :
N. Viswanatha Iyer; For Petitioner A.P. Chandrasekharan; G. Sreekumar; For Respondent

A carbon copy, if it contains necessary particulars indicating its authenticity, can be treated as a certified copy of the order appealed against.

Headnote:

Certified Copy - Maintainability of Appeal - S.76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Summary of Acts and Sections: S.76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court discussed the provisions of S.76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which requires a certified copy of a public document to be presented for appeal. The court interpreted the section and held that a carbon copy, if it contains necessary particulars indicating its authenticity, can be treated as a certified copy of the order appealed against.

Fact of the Case:

The case arose from a suit for partition where a preliminary decree was passed, and the plaintiff filed an appeal against the dismissal of an application. The defendants raised a preliminary objection in the District Court regarding the sufficiency of a carbon copy of the impugned order for the appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the carbon copy produced along with the appeal is a certified copy of the order appealed against, and thus the presentation of the appeal with that carbon copy is valid.

Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the appeal based on the sufficiency of the carbon copy produced, as it did not have a certificate in full compliance with S.76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted S.76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and held that a carbon copy, if it contains necessary particulars indicating its authenticity, can be treated as a certified copy of the order appealed against.

Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the District Judge's decision to overrule the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal was upheld.

Judgment :-

1. The short question raised in this revision is as to the maintainability of an appeal wherein a carbon copy of the impuged order without a certificate in full compliance with S.76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been produced. The District Judge before whom that appeal was filed has overruled the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability and that order is under challenge in this revision.

2. The matter arose from a suit for partition in which a preliminary decree was passed by the trial court and the final decree proceedings are still pending. The 1st defendant was appointed as receiver by the trial court. Later, an application was filed by the plaintiff for removing the 1st defendant from receivership and to appoint another receiver from the panel of receivers. That application was dismissed by the trial court against which the plaintiff has preferred an appeal as C.M.A. No. 18 of 1982 before the District Court. A carbon copy of the impugned order has been produced in appeal. The defendants raised a preliminary objection in the District Court on the ground that a carbon copy is not a sufficient substitute for copy of a decree and at any rate it is not a certified copy and as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine. The learned District Judge heard the preliminary objection and passed the impugned order holding that the carbon copy produced is sufficient to make the presentation of the appeal valid.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended first that the appeal should have been presented with a certified copy of the order appended with a table of costs as provided in R.186 of the Civil Rules of Practice.

When the attention of the learned counsel was drawn to the fact that the preliminary objection raised in the lower court was not on the basis of the non-appending of a table of costs in the carbon copy of the order, the learned counsel has confined his argument to the only point that the carbon copy produced cannot be regarded as certified copy as per the provisions in S.76 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to him, the appeal should have been found not maintainable on that sols ground itself. If the carbon copy produced in appeal is not a certified copy of the order, even the learned counsel for the respondents has conceded that the presentation of the appeal is defective, but he contends that when there is substantial compliance with S.76 of the Evidence Act the carbon copy must be treated as a certified copy for all purposes including the purpose of appeal. Thus the point centres round the question whether the carbon copy produced along with the appeal is a certified copy of the order

4. Before dealing with this question, an idea about the relevant features of the carbon copy produced would be useful for appreciating the contentions raised by both sides. The last sheet of the said copy bears the signature of the Principal Munsiff, who passed the order, and below that the following short order is quoted:

"Counsel for petitioner-plaintiff orally prays for issue of carbon copy of this order. Issue carbon copy on payment of requisite charges".

The Principal Munsiff had put his signature again. Further down, the appendix regarding the witnesses and exhibits is given and the Principal Munsiff has affixed bis signature or initials again The docket portion contains the usual endorsement indicating the name of the applicant and date of the application etc. Besides all those, the Examiner of the court has endorsed that "carbon copy granted as per order on I.A. 685/82, dt. 26-3-82". The seal of the court is seen affixed on the first page of the order. These are the main relevant features to be borne in mind when considering the question raised.in this revision. What the said copy does not contain is a certificate that it is the true copy of the document.

5. S.76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus:

"Certified copies of public documents.- Every public officer having the custody





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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