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

2009 Supreme(P&H) 348

K.KANNAN
S. P. Arora – Appellant
Versus
Satbir Singh – Respondent


Judgment

K.Kannan, J.

1. The petition seeking "de-exhibition" of certain documents filed by the landlord was allowed and the aggrieved party is the revision petition before this Court.

2. The documents which were sought to be tendered in evidence and which had been filed in Court were certified copies of certain sale deeds, power of attorney and site plan. The Court rejected them saying that no permission had been obtained to lead secondary evidence and the original documents themselves had not been exhibited and hence, the documents could not be, therefore, taken as exhibits. In my view, such a procedure is not contemplated though it can be a matter of practice obtaining in some Courts. The Evidence Act contains procedure for reception of secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act said Section details the several circumstances when secondary evidence could be adduced. By the very nature of things, the offer of a party to give proof of the facts through secondary evidence is a matter of evidence and not a smarter of essential pleading. Although it could still be stated that evidence without a pleading may not be possible but the circumstances detailing the recept


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