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

2015 Supreme(MP) 230

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA
Kalu Singh – Appellant
Versus
Nirmala – Respondent


Advocates:
M. L. Pathak for petitioners; D. K. Sharma for respondents.

ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants in the suit challenging the order of the trial Court dated 29.9.2014, whereby the trial Court has permitted the respondents/plaintiffs to exhibit the affidavits as documents.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that affidavits are not documents and they are not covered by the Evidence Act therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to exhibit the same as documents.

3. As against this counsel for respondents has submitted that these affidavits have evidentiary value therefore, they have rightly been allowed to be exhibited.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that section 1 of Evidence Act, excludes the applicability of the Act to the affidavits presented to any Court. section 1 reads as under :

“1. Short title, extent and commencement. - This Act may be called the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

It extends to the whole of India [except the State of Jammu and Kashmir] and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-martial, [other than Court-martial convened under th






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