Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH, MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ
P.Balasubramanyam – Appellant
Versus
Gopalan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to admissibility of document. (Para 1) |
| 2. objection on evidence protocol. (Para 2) |
| 3. guidance on handling admissibility. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. premature ruling on admissibility. (Para 7) |
| 5. decision concludes appeal properly. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by C.KUMARAPPAN.,J)
The instant Original Side Appeal has been filed as against the order of the learned single Judge dated 09.01.2025, wherein the learned single Judge has permitted marking of xerox copy of a document, viz., death summary.
2. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel is that the xerox copy of the document, which is sought to be marked is not accompanied with a certificate in accordance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore the same is inadmissible. In support of her contention, she relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.VE.Venkatachala Gounder V. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P.Temple and another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 752.
3. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. The decision in R.VE.Venkatachala Gounder (supra) deals with the issue as to when objection is to be raised a
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
