Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Charan Dass – Appellant
Versus
Preeto Devi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff sues declaring forged will void sale deed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendants deny forgery assert valid title purchase. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petition challenges dismissal late evidence applications. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. seeks thumbprint comparison via secondary evidence. (Para 8) |
| 5. o7 r14 mandates early document production listing. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. o7 r14 bars filling evidentiary lacunae belatedly. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. prior knowledge delay preclude late document admission. (Para 16) |
| 8. secondary evidence requires proving original unavailability. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 9. witness fails s65 possession refusal proof. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. s45 expert opinion denied post evidence closure. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 11. trial court order upheld petition dismissed. (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una, District Una, H.P dated 13.08.2024, whereby application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC read with Section 65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act and another application under Order 45 of the Indian Evidence Act have been order to be dismi
Order VII Rule 14 CPC and Evidence Act Sections 65(a), 45 cannot be used belatedly to fill evidentiary lacunae; requires due diligence, notice, authentication; no supervisory interference absent perv....
Secondary evidence requires cogent evidence of document loss; mere assertions do not suffice under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Civil Law – Secondary Evidence – Reliability of - A party to lis may choose to file an application which is required to be considered by trial court but if any party to suit has laid foundation of le....
Validation of secondary evidence requires strict adherence to stipulations under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, failing which the application may be quashed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the party seeking to admit secondary evidence must establish the non-production of the original document as required under the Indian Evidence....
The trial court erred by allowing secondary evidence regarding the Will without sufficient pleadings and at a late stage of litigation.
The court established that secondary evidence is inadmissible without a foundational explanation for the absence of primary evidence, emphasizing strict adherence to evidentiary rules.
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
