The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admissibility and proof of documents as evidence must adhere to the principles outlined in the Indian Evidence Act, and the failure to examine necessary witnesses can impact the admissibility of such documents.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. The unsuccessful defendant has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent and the appeal which was filed by her has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

2. In brief the suit of plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh is that defendant-Smt. Haseena Bi has obtained an ex parte decree by playing fraud. According to the plaintiff, in between the night of 2nd and 3rd December, 1984 the gas disaster in Bhopal took place in which it is said that husband of defendant Razak Mohammad aged 58 years s/o Babu Khan and his three sons Ramjan Khan, Sharif and Karim succumbed to the poisonous gas which they inhaled and breathed their last. State-Government took a decision to pay Rs. 10,000/- to Haseena Bi who is the widow of Razak Mohammad. According to the plaintiff, an application for obtaining gratuitous compensation amount was submitted by defendant in respect to her three sons only and it was submitted in the application that her husband is missing and she never disclosed that her husband had died. For the first time on 17-6-1985 she submitted an application stating therein that her husband Razak Mohammad had also died as a victim of the gas disaster. On inquiry it was found by the State of Madhya Pradesh that her husband had not died on account of inhaling the gas and therefore, declined to pay the gratuitous amount of Rs. 10,000/- to her. Resultantly, a Civil Suit No. 18-A/1988 was filed by the defendant of this suit in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhopal in which the ex parte decree was passed against the present plaintiff. Hence, the present suit has been filed to set aside the ex parte decree.

3. The defendant-appellant by filing written statement refuted the plaint averments and stated therein that indeed her husband Late Razak Mohammad had died as a victim of gas disaster only and thus it has been prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. The learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of plaintiff-State and set aside the ex parte decree which was passed on 19-1-1989 in Civil Suit No. 18-A/1988 in favour of defendant.

5. The first appeal which was filed by the defendant has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

6. In this manner this second appeal has been filed by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree passed by learned two Courts below.

7. This Court on 10-1-2011 admitted this second appeal on the following substantial question of law :

Whether in the absence of the examination of the Director Medico Legal Institute who had submitted his report-Exhibit P-10, the said report can be held to be proved and on that basis the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit filed by the respondent?

8. The contention of Shri K. S. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant is that in the document dated 4-6-1989 (Ex.P-10) which is a letter sent by Professor Heeresh Chandra, Director, Office of the Director of Medico-Legal Institute and same is addressed to Collector, Gas Rahat, Bhopal in reference to the letter of the Collector No. 3573/Gas Rahat/4/89 dated 4-8-1989, it is mentioned that the postmortem was performed on the dead body of an unknown male on 5-12-1984 vide post-mortem No. 600 and in the said letter it has been mentioned that the deceased was male aged about 60 years and was "Hindu". Learned counsel submits that admittedly the doctor who performed the post-mortem as well as Professor Heeresh Chandra who wrote this letter (Ex.P-10) to Collector, Gas Rahat, Bhopal have not been examined and if that would be the position, merely putting exhibit mark on this letter would not mean that the same has been admitted in evidence and is a proved document. In support of his contention, he has placed heavy reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court M. P. Bombay Transport Corporation (M/s) and others v. New India Assurance Company