Back
SUJOY PAUL
Imtiaz Ahmed Khan – Appellant
Versus
Simpson and Company – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the order dated 05.10.2023 in I.A. No. 138 of 2021 in R.C. No. 49 of 2017 on the file of the Court of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad (for short, Court below), whereby the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of CPC, was allowed.
2. In short, the relevant facts are that petitioner herein and respondent No. 2 herein have filed the aforesaid RC seeking eviction of respondent No. 1 herein from the petition schedule premises. When the matter is at the stage of evidence of petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein, respondent No. 1 filed I.A. No. 138 of 2021 to permit him to lead secondary evidence in respect of order dated 03.12.1990 in R.C. No. 1558/1986 on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. In the said application, it is averred that R.C. No. 1558/1986 was filed by one of the legal heirs of the petitioner herein and the same was dismissed by order dated 03.12.1990. The effort of respondent No. 1 herein to obtain certified copy of order dated 03.12.1990 could not fetch any result because the old material/rec
Secondary evidence requires proof of the original document's non-production; a party must establish a foundation in pleadings for its admissibility.
Secondary evidence is admissible for public documents unless substantial evidence of forgery is presented.
The admissibility of documents must be established before allowing secondary evidence, as per the provisions of the Evidence Act and relevant case law.
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
