Petitioner Advocates:Krishna Dallumah,Jasbeer Singh,Nur Hakimah Mohamad,Yong Yoong Hui,Aradhna Kaur ,Respondent Advocate: Gurdit Singh Kesar Singh,Nashvinder Singh Gill

Key Points: - The evidential burden rests on the claimant to prove authenticity and content of disputed documents; failure defeats the claim. (!) (!) - Documents marked as exhibits (Part C) require proof of authenticity; simply marking them does not prove their contents and may shift burdens incorrectly. (!) (!) (!) - Original documents and maker’s testimony are necessary to prove authenticity; absence leads to inadmissibility or weight issues. (!) (!) (!) - The court criticized improper admission/marking of IDP1/IDP2 as exhs P1/P2 without calling the makers, affecting admissibility and weight. (!) (!) (!) - The proper procedure for Part C documents entails proving authenticity and contents, not assuming truth upon marking. (!) (!) - Adverse inference can be drawn when makers of disputed documents are not called. (!) (!) - Burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact; if no evidence is given, the opposing party may succeed. (!) (!) - Prima facie evidence requires sufficient probability to shift the onus; otherwise, the respondent must prove its case. (!) (!) - The Court restored the High Court judgment, finding insufficient proof of authenticity and content of the disputed vouchers. (!) (!)

What is the burden of proof for authenticity and content of disputed documentary evidence?

What is the effect of marking documents as exhibits on their evidential value when their maker has not been called to prove authenticity?

What are the conditions for admissibility and weight of Part C documents and the proper procedure for admitting such documents?