Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J
Kumarpal N. Shah (since deceased) – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Universal Mechanical Works Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial eviction proceedings and complications due to the death of the landlord. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments surrounding the right to mark documents as secondary evidence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussions on objections related to the authenticity and nature of documents. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. court analysis of public vs. private document distinctions in evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. final ruling allowing document marking with specified conditions on authenticity. (Para 32 , 38 , 39) |
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. Initially, the landlord filed R.A.E. & R. Suit No.995/1485 of 2006, seeking the eviction of respondent-tenant. Later, he died. Then, his wife and children (“the owners”) brought themselves on record as the legal representatives. First, the owners applied under Exh.98 seeking the trial Court’s leave to mark a bunch documents as secondary evidence under Section 65 (f) of the Indian Evidence Act. The trial Court allowed that application through its order, dated 28th February 2018. That order has not been disturbed.
3. Later, one of the owners, that is the 3rd plaintiff, filed the “affidavit in lieu of
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
