The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the requirements of proof under the Evidence Act, particularly regarding the admissibility of documents and the procedure for proving the contents of a document.

Permod Kohli, J.

1. Both the parties are claiming possession over the suit property. The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs seeking a permanent injunction against the present appellants from taking forcible possession of the suit land without any right. The defendants, however, pleaded that the suit property is under the ownership of Harijan Cooperative Land Owning Society Limited, which is a registered society and the suit land was given to them for cultivation by Nika Singh, their father.

2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in dispute? OPP

2. Whether the defendants are in cultivating possession of the land in dispute? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for? OPP

4. Relief.

3. The plaintiff relied upon jamabandis Exhibits P-1 and P-3 and Khasra Girdwaris Exhibits P-2 and P-4 and also produced Chanan Singh, Mohan Singh and Gurcharan Singh as witnesses to establish his possession, whereas defendant-appellants herein, produced Chota Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Ladha Singh, Rajinder Pal and Parminder Singh as DW-1 to DW-5, respectively. It has been held by the learned trial Court that in the jamabandis produced, name of Harijan Cooperative Society Pati Sandhu Barnala is incorporated in the column of ownership, whereas Harnam Singh is shown to be in possession in khasra girdwaris produced and the entries in khasra girdwaris are duly supported by the witnesses produced by the plaintiff. However, the defendant-appellants relied upon the written statement Ex.DW-4/A, alleged to be filed by the plaintiff in an earlier suit admitting the joint possession of the plaintiff and defendants. The learned trial Court placed reliance upon the jamabandis and khasra girdwaris and corroborated statements of the plaintiffs witnesses to hold that the plaintiff is in possession and disbelieved the oral evidence of the defendants and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 13.10.1984.

4. The defendants appealed against the aforesaid judgment and decree which also resulted in dismissal by the learned Lower Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Barnada), vide its judgment and decree dated 13.01.1986. The learned Lower Appellate. Court also refused to rely upon the evidence of the defendant-appellants including the document i.e. certified copy of the written statement, Ex.DW-4/A, on the ground that the same was not been proved in evidence and the same was not even confronted to the plaintiff during his cross-examination.

5. Admittedly, when this appeal was admitted to hearing on 19.05.1986, no substantial question of law was framed as per the then practice in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. However, when this appeal was taken up for hearing, with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, following substantial question of law has been framed:

Whether a certified copy of the written statement of an earlier suit is per se admissible in evidence or can be proved in evidence by a person other than the author or scribe?

6. The parties have been heard on the above substantial question of law, at length.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has referred to and relied upon judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Biswanath Prasad and Ors. v. Dwarka Prasad and Ors., wherein the following observations have been made:

There is no merit even in the contention that because these three statements-Exs. G., G2 and H- had not been put to the first plaintiff when he was in the witness box or to the eighth defendant although he had discreetly kept away from giving evidence, they cannot be used against him. Counsel drew our attention to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is a cardinal distention between a party who is the author of a prior statement and a witness who is examined a