Whether bailiff report is public document?

 But, if the report of the bailiff was to be treated as a
public document, there was nothing for the respondent no.4 to
do, but to produce a certified copy of the same and then claim
that he had proved his stand. This would be contrary to the
requirement of Section 101 of the aforesaid Act, which reads as
follows:-
101. Burden of proof.—Whoever desires any
Court to give judgment as to any legal right or
liability dependent on the existence of facts
which he asserts, must prove that those facts
exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of
any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on
that person.
18. Thus, it becomes clear that the burden to prove

clearly was on the respondent no.4 in the facts of the present
case. Only the contents of the summons issued by the Court,
consisting of name of the Court, name of the parties, seal of
the Court and the returnable date stated in the summons could
be said to be a public document. The report written by the
bailiff on the reverse of the said document could certainly not
be said to be a public document under Section 74 of the said
Act. Yet, the trial Court passed the order dated 26.08.2015
allowing the production of the documents, including the bailiff
report, by the respondent no.4 and passed the impugned order
dated 26.08.2015 below Exh.40 holding the said documents to
be directly admissible in evidence as public documents and
marking them as exhibits. The trial Court also erred in passing
the impugned order dated 21.07.2016 below Exh.44 rejecting
the application of the petitioner for de-exhibiting the said
documents including the bailiff report. It is also surprising that
the trial Court did not even call for the say/response of the
petitioner while passing the order, whereby production of the
documents was allowed and while passing impugned order
dated 26.08.2015, whereby the documents including the said
bailiff report, were treated as public documents and accepted.
This was clearly erroneous, thereby rendering the impugned
orders unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside.

19. In the light of the above, the present writ petition is
allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.
The application Exh.44 is allowed. It is held that the bailiff
report sought to be placed on record and exhibited as public
document cannot be treated as a public document and that it
will have to be proved by respondent no.4 in accordance with
law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 79 of 2017

Sushilkumar Mandanlal Ganediwal, Vs  Vijaykumar Mandanlal Ganediwal,


CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED: JANUARY 31,2019
Citation: 2019(3) MHLJ 721,AIR 2019 BOM 201

Print Page

Whether registered deed of assignment is public document?

 The Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 describes which documents would form public documents. The sub-section (1) thereof provides that the documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of the sovereign authority, of official bodies and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country are the public documents whereas the sub-section (2) of Section 74 provides that the public records kept in any state of private documents are also public documents. Merely because the public records kept in the state of private documents are defined as public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, that itself would not amount to contend that any document executed between two or more parties by itself would form a public document. The record pertaining to such document kept by the State though in the form of public record may form a public document, any such private document by itself cannot constitute to be a public document and it will continue to be a private document executed by the private parties. As such document would be a document enumerated under Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act. Being so, merely because the deed of assignment is registered with the competent authority that deed itself would not partake the nature of a public document and it will continue to be a private document. A record relating to the execution of such deed maintained by the State however may be a public document bearing in mind the provision of law comprised under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. Being so, the contention that the deed of assignment is a public document and therefore the petitioner would be taken by surprise by production of such document is to be rejected as being totally devoid of substance.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

W.P. No. 5832 of 2004

Decided On: 20.09.2004

 Purushottam Vs.  A.N. Jog and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

Citation: 2005(1) MHLJ 426

Print Page

Whether private document can be treated as public document if it is registered with competent authority?

The Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 describes which documents would form public documents. The sub-section (1) thereof provides that the documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of the sovereign authority, of official bodies and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country are the public documents whereas the sub-section (2) of Section 74 provides that the public records kept in any state of private documents are also public documents. Merely because the public records kept in the state of private documents are defined as public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, that itself would not amount to contend that any document executed between two or more parties by itself would form a public document. The record pertaining to such document kept by the State though in the form of public record may form a public document, any such private document by itself cannot constitute to be a public document and it will continue to be a private document executed by the private parties. As such document would be a document enumerated under Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act. Being so, merely because the deed of assignment is registered with the competent authority that deed itself would not partake the nature of a public document and it will continue to be a private document. A record relating to the execution of such deed maintained by the State however may be a public document bearing in mind the provision of law comprised under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. Being so, the contention that the deed of assignment is a public document and therefore the petitioner would be taken by surprise by production of such document is to be rejected as being totally devoid of substance.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

W.P. No. 5832 of 2004

Decided On: 20.09.2004

Purushottam alias Nana U. Sanyasi Vs. A.N. Jog and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

Citation: 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 426,

Print Page

Whether sanction for prosecution can be proved if person has given sanction for prosecution is not examined?

 Counsel for the appellant had taken another legal objection to the validity of the trial. He contends that for the prosecution of the accused-appellant, the sanction, though tendered in evidence and exhibited, was not duly proved by producing into the witness-box, the officer, who accorded it. Under Section 74 of the Evidence Act any writing may be proved by the opinion of any person who is acquainted with the handwriting of the man alleged to have written the document. A person may be acquainted with the handwriting of another person, (1) when he has seen that person write, (2) when he has received communication purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents purporting to be written by himself or (3) when in the ordinary course of business documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. The technical requirement of proof of handwriting is satisfied if a person alleges that he had seen another person writing and that in his opinion the writing to be proved is that of the other person In the present case Mr. D.V. Chopra, P.W. 11, has stated that he has worked as Stenographer to Mr. S.C Saxena and he recognises his signatures as he used to sign papers in his presence. The order of sanction Ex. P. 943 contains the signatures of Mr. S.C. Saxena at portion marked A to B. This evidence has not been controverted on behalf of the accused It cannot, therefore, be said that the prosecution has not proved the genuineness of the signature of Mr. S.C. Saxena, Divisional Engineer Telegraphs, Jaipur. That apart, the sanction allowing the prosecution is a document which falls within the ambit of Section 74 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, it requires no formal proof. Production of its copy or original is a sufficient compliance of the law: vide Ravi Datt v. State A.I.R. 1956 Pepsu 12. Thus, the objection raised on behalf of the appellant is is over-ruled & it is held that the sanction Ex. P. 943 is perfectly valid. It discloses all the material facts of the case. It further reveals that the sanctioning authority did apply its mind before according it.

Rajasthan High Court

Prem Parkash vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 1971

Equivalent citations: 1971 WLN 408

Bench: L Metha

Print Page

Whether plaint is public document?

What are public documents are stated in Section 74
of the Evidence Act: Documents forming the acts or
records of the acts of the sovereign authority, of official
bodies and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative,
judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the
Commonwealth or of a foreign country have been
described as public documents. I cannot see how a plaint
filed by a private person in Court to institute a case
against some others can come within the descriptions of
the documents given in that sub-section. Sub-section (2)
of Section 74 can in no way include a plaint. The plaint is
neither an act nor the record of an act of any public
officer. There can be no strength in the contention that
when the plaint is presented and the Court makes an
order admitting or registering it, the plaint becomes an
act or the record of an act of a public officer presiding
over the Court. At the most, it will become a part of the
record maintained by the Court in that case after the

plaint is admitted and registered, but that itself will not
make it a public document. If it were, then anything filed
in a case in a case in a court of law either petitions or
pleadings, private communications or documents which a
party would file in a case would become public
documents for the simple reason that they are on the
record of a case in Court. The judgment and decree
passed in a case are undoubtedly the acts of the Court,
and they will be public documents on that account.
Similarly, a petition of compromise which is made a part
of the decree forms a part of the public document, but
before its incorporation in the decree, it remains a
private document, though filed in Court, forming a part
of the case record.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the
case and the law governing the field, this Court is of the definite
conclusion that the plaint in C.S. No.80 of 2006 is not a public
document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act and
therefore, the same cannot be admitted into evidence and marked as
exhibit without proving the contents thereof. 
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
W.P.(Civil) NO. 10286 OF 2007

Smt.Baijayanti Nanda  Vs Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu 

PRESENT:-
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

 Date of judgment : 13.03.2014

Citation;AIR 2014 Orissa 128

Print Page