Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta VS New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. ...

Checking relevance for Sushil Kumar Jain VS Manoj Kumar...

Checking relevance for Kapil Corepacks Pvt. Ltd. VS Harbans Lal (since deceased)...

Checking relevance for Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. VS Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries)...

Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. VS Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 783 : Under Order 13, CPC, if a party has previously submitted a copy of a document and the examination of the party has been completed, the original document can still be admitted on file if it is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case, particularly when the original was not produced during trial due to procedural irregularities or when the court finds that justice requires it. The court may admit the original even at the appellate stage if there is a substantial reason, such as the trial court''''s failure to follow proper procedure (e.g., marking a document as an exhibit without resolving objections to admissibility), and the original is essential to correct a miscarriage of justice. The appellate court has discretion under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC to admit additional evidence ''''for any other substantial reason'''' when the interest of justice demands it, even if the original was not produced during trial and the party has already been examined.Checking relevance for Shiva Jute Baling LTD. VS Hindley and Co. LTD. ...

Shiva Jute Baling LTD. VS Hindley and Co. LTD. - 1955 0 Supreme(SC) 33 : Under Order 13 of the Supreme Court Rules (1950), when special leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court under Article 136, the order itself operates as an admission of the appeal once the conditions (such as furnishing security or making a deposit) are complied with. It is not necessary for the appellant to file a fresh copy of the Supreme Court order or petition for it to form part of the record. Furthermore, in such cases, it is not required to make a formal application for admission of the appeal. Therefore, if a party has already submitted a copy of the document and the examination of the party has been completed under Order 13 CPC, the original document may be admitted on file without requiring re-filing, as the procedural effect of the special leave order suffices for admission.Checking relevance for UNION OF INDIA VS IBRAHIM UDDIN...

Checking relevance for Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. VS P. Rajkumar rep. By His Power Agent Imam Oli...

Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. VS P. Rajkumar rep. By His Power Agent Imam Oli - 2020 6 Supreme 410 : Under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, a document not produced with the written statement may still be admitted in evidence with the leave of the court. The court''''s discretion to grant such leave must be exercised judiciously, and it can be granted upon a showing of good cause. Even if a party has previously submitted a copy of a document and the examination of the party has been completed, the original document may still be admitted on file if the court grants leave under Rule 1A(3), particularly when the document is necessary for arriving at a just decision and the procedural non-compliance does not cause serious prejudice to the opposing party. The court is required to lean towards substantial justice and the pursuit of truth, especially when procedural violations do not materially prejudice the other side.Checking relevance for Colonel Mukul Dev VS Deveshwari Devi...

Checking relevance for Alice VS Moly, W/O. Theyilakkadan Paulson...

Alice VS Moly, W/O. Theyilakkadan Paulson - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 48 : Under Order 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a party is not required to produce the original document or even a copy before the court with notice to the other side prior to confronting it during cross-examination of a witness. The court held that it is not necessary to lay a foundation for adducing secondary evidence when confronting a copy of a document during cross-examination. Furthermore, documents or copies marked by confronting them to a witness during cross-examination can be admitted into evidence, even if the original was not previously produced, as long as the witness admits to the authenticity of the copy. The probative value of such documents is to be determined by the court based on the entire circumstances, but their admissibility is not barred merely because the original was not produced earlier. This applies even after the examination of the party has been completed, as the purpose of such confrontation is to test the credibility of the witness, and the element of surprise is essential to that process.Checking relevance for Jyotish Baishya, S/o. Late Harindra Baishya VS Hari Ram Baishya, S/o. Late Kina Ram Baishya...

Jyotish Baishya, S/o. Late Harindra Baishya VS Hari Ram Baishya, S/o. Late Kina Ram Baishya - 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 807 : Under Order 13 Rule 1(3a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, original documents need not be produced if they are being used for the cross-examination of the opposing party''''s witness or for refreshing a witness''''s memory. Since the party has already submitted copies of the documents and the examination of the party has been completed, the original document may be admitted on file if it is already on record in the form of a copy (e.g., Ext. Ga & Gha). The court held that there is no restriction on the appellant to confront a witness with documents already on record, even if the original was not produced earlier, and that the purpose of Order 13 can be achieved through existing records. Therefore, the original document can be admitted on file after the examination is complete, especially when the copy is already on record and the purpose of production has been fulfilled.

• Submission of Copy & Original Documents - A party can submit a copy of a document previously filed, and if the party has completed examination under Order 13 CPC, the original document may not be strictly necessary for admission, especially if the copy is made from the original record and a declaration is made to that effect ["Lamba Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Kristan Auto - Punjab and Haryana"].

• Admission & Cross-Examination - When a document is put to a witness during cross-examination and the witness fails to admit it, the party that introduced the document is entitled to prove it in its own evidence ["HSIL Ltd. VS Manish Vij - Delhi"]. If the document is marked as an exhibit without objection, it is deemed admitted in evidence, but objections to admissibility or authenticity can be raised later, often after cross-examination ["ALICE vs MOLY - Kerala"].

• Production & Filing of Original Documents - Under Order 13 CPC, original documents must generally be produced before or at the time of settlement of issues. Documents produced solely for cross-examination or to refresh a witness's memory are exceptions, and the obligation to produce originals is waived in such cases ["ITC LTD vs NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD AND ORS - Calcutta"], ["Jyotish Baishya, S/o. Late Harindra Baishya VS Hari Ram Baishya, S/o. Late Kina Ram Baishya - Gauhati"]. If the original is unavailable, secondary evidence like certified copies can be admitted, but the party must prove the existence and authenticity of the original first ["ALICE vs MOLY - Kerala"], ["N. Divakaran, Son of Late Narayanan VS David Livingston - Kerala"].

• Admissibility of Certified Copies - Certified copies of public documents are admissible as secondary evidence when the original is not available, but they do not prove the contents unless the original has been destroyed, lost, or is deliberately withheld ["N. Divakaran, Son of Late Narayanan VS David Livingston - Kerala"]. The production of such copies requires prior notice to the other party, and they must be authenticated and proved to be true copies ["ALICE vs MOLY - Kerala"].

• Examination & Examination Stages - The examination of parties and witnesses under Order 13 CPC requires that all documentary evidence be produced at or before the settlement of issues. However, documents can be confronted during cross-examination without necessarily being filed earlier, provided proper procedures are followed ["Jyotish Baishya, S/o. Late Harindra Baishya VS Hari Ram Baishya, S/o. Late Kina Ram Baishya - Gauhati"], ["Digumarthi Suresh Babu S/o Yanadi Rao VS B. A. S. Granites, Kurnool - Andhra Pradesh"]. The court may allow late production of documents for good cause, but generally, non-production at the proper stage limits the ability to admit such documents later ["Digumarthi Suresh Babu S/o Yanadi Rao VS B. A. S. Granites, Kurnool - Andhra Pradesh"].

• Procedure & Court's Discretion - The court has discretion to admit documents after examining their relevance and authenticity, especially if the original is unavailable, but must be satisfied that the secondary evidence is reliable ["In The Goods Of Kanhaiyalal Sikhwal vs In The Goods Of Savitri Devi Sikhwal (Dec) - Calcutta"]. Objections to admissibility should be raised before evidence is tendered; once admitted and marked, objections are limited ["M. Raghunath Reddy vs Mala Ayyanna (Since died) Per L.Rs. - Telangana"].

Analysis and Conclusion:Once a party has submitted copies of documents and completed examination under Order 13 CPC, the original document is not necessarily required for admission, especially if the copy is properly made from the original record with an appropriate declaration ["Lamba Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Kristan Auto - Punjab and Haryana"]. However, the primary requirement remains that the original or authentic secondary evidence must be produced at the appropriate stage, and procedural compliance is essential. If the original is unavailable, secondary evidence such as certified copies can be admitted, but the party must prove the authenticity and existence of the original first ["N. Divakaran, Son of Late Narayanan VS David Livingston - Kerala"]. The courts emphasize strict adherence to procedural rules regarding the production and admission of documents, with exceptions for cross-examination and refreshment of witnesses, but late submission without sufficient cause is generally disfavored ["ITC LTD vs NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD AND ORS - Calcutta"]. Therefore, in cases where the party has already examined the witness and submitted copies, the original document need not be re-admitted unless specifically required by the court or if authenticity is challenged ["HSIL Ltd. VS Manish Vij - Delhi"].