Supreme Court: Unless author of permanent disability certificate is examined, permanent disability certificate is not admissible in evidence

 The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate.  {Para 9}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3538 of 2008 

Decided On: 13.05.2008

Rajesh Kumar Vs. Yudhvir Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and L.S. Panta, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/7686/2008 : 2008 ACJ 2131 SC.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Sessions Judge Can consider Electronic Evidence in Criminal Revision Without Section 65-B Certificate

 For considering whether the learned Revisional Court has rightly passed the order and at this stage whether for viewing CD or any other material, whether certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is necessary? At this stage the Court is not accepting the said document as a proof in the trial. The Court is also not adjudicating upon any of the issues or the points with the help of such a document. As stated, it is only for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether case is made out to issue direction under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. assuming that the Court takes cognizance by rejecting the prayer for directions under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and direct police to make an inquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C., still stage of trial is yet to come. The question of admissibility of offence would come only in the Trial and not any time before such document is tendered into evidence and sought to be proved by the prosecution or the parties to the proceedings. Therefore, the question of expecting a certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act itself does not arise at this stage. {Para 16}

21. This Court finds in view of above discussion that at this stage, what needs to be considered is only that a revision is pending before the Sessions Court against order passed by the learned JMFC refusing to pass order under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The objection is only to viewing of the CD by the Revisional Court. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that there is no bar to look into the documents and has rightly rejected the application and permitted the respondent to display the video recording. This order is passed only to enable the Court to look into the material that was produced before the Magistrate and nothing else. This Court finds that no fault can be found with the impugned order. For the above reasons, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not require any interference.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 76 of 2023

Decided On: 05.06.2023

Sudhir and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Kishore C. Sant, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1987/2023

Print Page

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Unregistered Lease Agreements

 Analysis of K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd v. Development Consultant Ltd (2008) 8 SCC 654

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd v. Development Consultant Ltd (2008) 8 SCC 654 stands as a landmark judgment on the admissibility and legal effect of unregistered lease agreements in India. This case is frequently cited for its authoritative interpretation of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, and its impact on landlord-tenant disputes, especially regarding the use of lease agreements that have not been registered as required by law.

Print Page

Whether unregistered document will be admissible in evidence for collateral purpose?

 Yes, unregistered documents are admissible in evidence for collateral purposes under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. While the general rule prohibits the admission of unregistered documents that are required to be registered, the law recognizes a specific exception for collateral purposes.

Legal Framework for Collateral Purpose

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether a party can say that a document is not proved if he has shown that document in cross- examination of other side witness?

His evidence was that the books were, systematically kept on 'mahajani' system in connection with the business. The witness proved the Khata, the raznamcha and the nakalbahi entries. In cross-examination of Gopi Kishan Saraugi it was suggested that the entry under the date 30 September, 1942 in the roznamcha was not written at the same time. The suggestion was that there was interpolation of the words "deposit karaya" in the roznamcha entry. In cross-examination of Padampat Singhania questions were asked about the rokar, khata, nakalbahi and roznamcha entries. Padampat Singhania said that the entry of Rs. 4,00,000 was not recorded in the daily cash book but was recorded in the roznamcha. He said that credit and debit entries were made in the roznamcha. Padampat Singhania said that the entries were made by Gopi Kishan Jaipuria who was in a dying condition at the time the witness gave evidence.

16. It was suggested to Padampat Singhania that the words "deposit karaya" in the roznamcha entry were not written at the same sitting. Padampat Singhania denied that, Counsel for the appellant contended that in the absence of Gopi Kishan Jaipuria the account books were not proved. This is unacceptable for two reasons. First, the account books were shown in cross-examination of Padampat Singhania and question were asked on the same. It is not open to the appellant to complain of lack of proof of account books when the documents are shown to the witness in cross-examination. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2151 of 1966

Decided On: 21.01.1971

Ram Janki Devi and Ors. Vs. Juggilal Kamlapat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.N. Ray and G.K. Mitter, JJ.

Author: A.N. Ray, J.

Citation: 1971:INSC:35 : 1971 (1) SCC 477, MANU/MH/1001/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Ballistic Report Forwarded By Lab Director Or Deputy/Assistant Director Under The Seal Is Admissible In Evidence U/S 293 of CrPC

 The decision of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram45is a complete answer to this submission. In an identical situation, this Court held that there is no illegality in the way the prosecution has obtained the ballistic report under Section 293. The relevant portion of the decision is as under:

“6. Secondly, the ground on which the High Court has thrown out the prosecution story is the report of the ballistic expert. The report of the ballistic expert (Ext. PX) was signed by one Junior Scientific Officer. According to the High Court, a Junior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) is not the officer enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, in the absence of his examination such report cannot be read in evidence. This reason of the High Court, in our view, is also fallacious. Firstly, the forensic science laboratory report (Ext. P-X) has been submitted under the signatures of a Junior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. There is no dispute that the report was submitted under the hand of a government scientific expert. Section 293(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a government scientific expert under the section, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under the Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code. The High Court has completely overlooked the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 293 and arrived at a fallacious conclusion that a Junior Scientific Officer is not an officer enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 293. What sub-section (4) of Section 293 envisages is that the court is to accept the documents issued by any of the six officers enumerated therein as valid evidence without examining the author of the documents. xxx {Para 170}

171. In view of the fact that the ballistic report has come from the office of the Assistant Director bearing his seal and having considered the same in the context of Section 293(4) Cr.P.C., as explained by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram46 we are opinion that the Trial Court committed a serious error in rejecting the ballistic report and it was necessary and compelling for the High Court to reverse the finding of the Trial Court on this count also.

X. The rejection of the FSL (ballistic) report is another grave mistake of the Trial Court. The conclusion of the Trial Court that the ballistic report is inadmissible as it is not in consonance with the requirement of Section 293 Cr.P.C. is entirely wrong. We have explained this in detail. In an identical situation this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram51 has explained how the ballistic report is in complete compliance of the statutory provision. The High Court had to necessarily step in to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

Coram: UDAY UMESH LALIT; CJI., S. RAVINDRA BHAT; J., PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; J.

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 946-947 OF 2019; 

Dated: NOVEMBER 04, 2022 

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH CHANDEL Vs STATE OF U.P.

Author: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

Dated: NOVEMBER 04, 2022 

Print Page

Whether a party can confront a witness in cross-examination by showing him inadmissible document?

Clearly the procedure sought to be adopted is unviable. If the Plaintiff wanted to lead these documents in evidence, he ought to have done so before he closed his case. If he wished to hold them back for use in confronting the witness, he ought to have ensured that he had documents that were otherwise properly admissible in evidence. Dr. Chandrachud attempts an argument that a document used in this fashion is not substantive evidence. That is only partly correct. It may not, in and of itself, be substantive evidence of any fact that otherwise needs to be proved; but as a piece of evidence it has no higher or lower status than any other material that is duly received in evidence. Evidence is either primary or secondary. Material in evidence is not stratified by class or degree as higher or lower, as if to suggest that within the pool of evidence there is some sort of hierarchical taxonomy. The probative value of any piece of evidence may vary and may be the subject of argument; but once a document is marked as an Exhibit in evidence, it is like every other piece of evidence. If a witness is confronted with a document in a manner permitted by law, that document will be read in evidence; it will not be read in evidence at any lower level. It may not be proof in and of itself, substantively, of any given fact but that does not mean that it is relegated to some inferior position.
In the High Court of Bombay

(Before G.S. Patel, J.)

Vijay Kumar Gupta   Vs  Naresh Kumar Gupta

Testamentary Suit No. 72 of 2005

In

Testamentary Petition No. 528 of 2005

Decided on May 4, 2016

Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8659

Print Page

When court should defer decision on admissibility of document for insufficient stamp duty till final decision of suit?

 We find that the trial court as well as the High Court returned the findings on the bare reading of the power of attorney and observed that since it is a registered document, therefore, it is properly stamped. But the question as to whether in terms of the explanation inserted by the Orissa Act, such power of attorney is liable to be stamped as conveyance, on account of the delivery of possession at the time of execution of power of attorney or thereafter has not been examined.

12. We find that the question whether possession was transferred at the time or after execution of such power of attorney is a question of fact which is required to be decided by the Court at the time of final decision being adjudicated, after evidence is led by the parties and not merely on the basis of recitals in the power of attorney. Such process would be fair and reasonable keeping in view the provisions of Orissa Act.

13. We find that in the facts of the present case, the objection related to deficiency in stamp duty on a power of attorney which the Appellants claim to be conveyance, depends upon the finding regarding delivery of possession in terms of the power of attorney. Generally speaking, such objection is required to be decided before proceeding further. However, in a case where evidence is required to determine the nature of the document, it is reasonable to defer the admissibility of a document for insufficient stamp duty at the time of final decision in the suit.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1627 of 2019 

Decided On: 14.02.2020

Z. Engineers Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs.  Bipin Bihari Behera 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer and Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 184

Print Page

Whether a party can take objection to the admissibility of a document in the appeal if said document was exhibited without objection in the trial court?

 To the same effect is the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Gopal Das & Anr. v. Sri Thakurji & Ors. reported in MANU/PR/0002/1943 in which it has been held that when the objection to the mode of proof is not taken, the party cannot lie by until the case comes before a Court of appeal and then complain for the first time of the mode of proof. That when the objection to be taken is not that the document is in itself inadmissible but that the mode of proof was irregular, it is essential that the objection should be taken at the trial before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record. Similarly, in Sarkar on Evidence, 15th Edition, page 1084, it has been stated that where copies of the documents are admitted without objection in the trial Court, no objection to their admissibility can be taken afterwards in the court of appeal. When a party gives in evidence a certified copy, without proving the circumstances entitling him to give secondary evidence, objection must be taken at the time of admission and such objection will not be allowed at a later stage.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2434 of 2000

Decided On: 04.08.2004

Dayamathi Bai Vs. K.M. Shaffi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok Bhan and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.

Citation: (2004) 7 SCC 107:AIR 2004 SC 4082

Print Page

Bom HC: Document obtained under RTI can not be treated as public document if original is private document

Under RTI, usually the applicant gets photostat copies of the documents which are certified as true copies. They cannot be equated with certified copies mentioned in the Evidence Act. In other words, if the official under RTI certifies and supplies a private document, it still remains a private document. Thus, the RTI Act does not affect the nature of a document.

36. In Datti Kameswari, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that the copies obtained under the Right to Information Act certified by the Authorised Information Officer cannot be termed public documents or primary evidence. Only if the original qualifies to be a public document, then does its certified copy. But if the original is a private document, its copy secured under RTI Act does not get transformed into a public document. In that event, that certified copy of the private document must satisfy the provisions of Evidence Act for secondary evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 8764 of 2018

Decided On: 07.08.2019

 Kumarpal N. Shah Vs.  Universal Mechanical Works Pvt. Ltd.

Print Page

Whether court can direct impounding of document even though it is exhibited?

It appears to me that the same course was liable to be adopted in the present matter also. It appears that the Trial Court failed in appreciating and understanding the object of Section 33 of the Stamp Act. The object of this Section is to safeguard the revenue. As has been held by this Court in the aforesaid Judgment, Section 35 of the Stamp Act only gives finality to the decision in regard to the admissibility of the said document in evidence, it however does not operate as a bar for impounding of the said document. The Trial Court in the impugned order has observed that filing of an application by the present petitioner for impounding of document in question was only with the intention to protract the trial. If that be so, the Trial Court could have taken appropriate care in that regard also. There was no impediment to forward the original document to the Collector to impound the same by keeping on record the attested or certified copy of the document in question. It need not be stated that the Trial Court may not be required to wait for the decision of the Collector on the issue of impounding and can very well proceed further with the trial of the Suit. Since the agreement of sale dated 04.05.2009 has been admitted in the evidence, it would not be open for the present petitioner to call in question such admission at any stage of the Suit or proceeding on the ground that it has not been duly stamped.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 2810 of 2019

Decided On: 29.04.2019

 Priya Vs. Parushuram Printers and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.R. Bora, J.

Print Page

Whether any document can be exhibited if its maker has admitted his signature even if contents of document is not proved?

In the case of Mrs. Cynthia Martin Wd/o A.V. Martin v/s. Prembehari s/o. Makhanlal Yadu & Another reported in MANU/MH/0074/1998 : 1998 (1) Bom. C.R. 631, it is observed in paragraph 12 that:-

By the said letter, it was informed by the competent authority that the house was not situated in the slum area. Shri De submitted that the only witness, who has been examined, has not been able to give any details regarding the said letter and mere proof of the signature would not amount to the proof of the contents of the letter. It is true that mere proof of the signature could not prove the contents of the letter. However, that is not a case here. The letter is clear enough, and once the letter is proved by proving the signature of the maker thereof, there would hardly be any reason to doubt the same regarding the veracity of the contents therein.

24. In the case of Grasim Industries Limited (supra), following observation made in paragraph 6:-

In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.

... Hence, it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent while admitting that the document, Ext. D-8 bears his signatures that it was signed under some mistake.

25. In the case of Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited (supra), the following observation was made:-

The learned trial Judge curiously declined to exhibit the document and marked it for identification s Ex. X/6 on the ground that even if the signature of the vendor on the document is proved, unless the contents are proved, the document cannot be admitted. We are afraid we cannot share the view of the learned trial Judge. The document stands proved as soon as the fact of execution is proved and it is wholly irrelevant whether the contents are proved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3190 of 2011 with Civil Application No. 956 of 2011

Decided On: 14.11.2011

Dinesh Vasantrai Bhuta  Vs.  Vasantben Harvilas Jani

Print Page

Whether carbon copy of leave and licence agreement is admissible in evidence?

Relying on paragraph 5 of the Affidavit Of Examination In Chief of the Plaintiff, it was contended that the Plaintiff has specifically admitted the signature on the Leave and License Agreement and what was produced during cross examination was the carbon copy and the Plaintiff has admitted his signature thereon. Relying upon section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it was submitted that carbon copy was itself primary evidence and, hence, it has rightly been directed to be exhibited. It was submitted that in any case, the carbon copy would be admissible as Secondary Evidence in view of Section 63(2) and since the Plaintiff failed to produce the original despite service of notice, the Plaintiff was not entitled to oppose the production of the carbon copy.

In view of the aforesaid legal position and in the peculiar facts of this case, where the Plaintiff has himself pleaded that the document is a camouflage, once the Plaintiff has admitted his signature on the carbon copy, the document stands proved and has been rightly exhibited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3190 of 2011 with Civil Application No. 956 of 2011

Decided On: 14.11.2011

Dinesh Vasantrai Bhuta  Vs.  Vasantben Harvilas Jani

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Godbole, J.

Print Page

Whether insufficiently stamped promissory note is admissible in evidence after impounding it?

Therefore, it follows from the authoritative pronouncements of this Court and also the High Court of Assam referred above, "promissory note" which is payable otherwise than on demand not duly stamped as required by Schedule Article 49(b) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, is inadmissible in evidence. Same cannot be received in evidence even on payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. The defect that, promissory note is not duly stamped or inadequately stamped, cannot be cured in view of the proviso (a) to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as held by this Court in the case of M/s. Wolstenholme International Ltd., (supra). 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No.9317 of 2011

Decided On: 25.07.2012

Shiva Sahakari Up Jal Sinchan Sanstha Ltd. Vs.  The Nanded District Central Coop. Bank and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.S. Shinde, J.

Print Page

Whether any document can be challenged after it is exhibited?

On a document being exhibited, the party against it is being brought on record, is entitled to question it on the ground of it being inadmissible. What is not open to question is the mode of proof put forward that it was irregular or insufficient. I find support from the decision of a Privy Council judgment reported in Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji, AIR (30) 1943 PC 83.

Rajasthan High Court

Prabhu Dayal vs Suwa Lal And Anr. on 20 August, 1993

Equivalent citations: AIR 1994 Raj 149, 1994 (1) WLC 620

Bench: K Agrawal

Print Page

Whether document would be admissible on basis of recital made in it or on basis of pleadings raised by parties?

Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State, however submitted that admissibility of the document would depend upon the recitals made in the document and not on basis of the pleadings made by one party and denied by the other.

Article 23 of Schedule-IA of the Indian Stamp Act refers to conveyance but with an added explanation it says that whenever there is an agreement to sell immovable property and there is a recital in the document that possession has been delivered to the proposed purchaser then the document would be deemed to be a conveyance and the stamp duty at the rate of 7.5% will have to be paid.

A document would be admissible on basis of the recitals made in the document and not on basis of the pleadings raised by the parties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)

W.P. No. 6464/2008

Decided On: 22.01.2010

 Mansingh  Vs. Rameshwar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.S. Garg and Prakash Shrivastava, JJ.

Print Page

Whether it is necessary for Court to decide admissibility of documents before they are exhibited in evidence?

Answer to Question-A:

As already noticed, (i) objection to the document sought to be produced relating to the deficiency of stamp duty must be taken when the document is tendered in evidence and such objection must be judicially determined before it is marked as exhibit;

(ii) Objection relating to the proof of document of which admissibility is not in dispute must be taken and judicially determined when it is marked as exhibit;

(iii) Objection to the document which in itself is inadmissible in evidence can be admitted at any stage of the suit reserving decision on question until final judgment in the case.

The Court trying the suit or proceedings as far as possible is expected to decide the admissibility or proof of document as indicated hereinabove. As we have already added a word caution that while exercising discretion judiciously for the advancement of the cause of justice for the reasons to be recorded, the Court can always work out its own modality depending upon the peculiar facts of each case without causing prejudice to the rights of the parties to meet the ends of justice and not to give the handle to either of the parties to protract litigation. The aim should always be to prevent miscarriage of justice and expedite trial, which is the dire need of the time.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

W.P. Nos. 623 and 1092 of 2005, Admiralty Suit No. 31 of 1995, Suit No. 3681 of 1996 and Testamentary Suit No. 19 of 1999

Decided On: 16.10.2008

 Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia Vs.  Subodh Mody

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Swatanter Kumar, C.J., V.C. Daga and V.M. Kanade, JJ.

Citation: 2008(6) ALLMR 352

Print Page

Whether print out of order taken from official website of high court is admissible in evidence?

 It is indeed unfortunate that the office of the Court below refused to accept the copy of the judgment and order dated 4.9.2017 passed by this Court, which was downloaded and obtained from the official website of this Court to permit the applicant/appellant to deposit the amount of costs in terms of the said judgment and order. The insistence on an official copy of the order of this Court was absolutely uncalled for and the applicant/appellant ought to have been permitted to deposit costs on the basis of the copy of the judgment and order obtained from the official website of this Court. In fact, in a recent order dated 2.2.2018 passed by this Court at Aurangabad in Misc.Civil Application No. 244 of 2017 (Shital Krushna Dhake v. Krushna Dagdu Dhake), in the context of refusal of Courts in accepting copies of orders obtained from the official website of this Court, it has been held as follows:-

1. I am of the view that this apprehension is misplaced since the print out of the orders of this Court from the official website has sanctity and the trial Courts are expected to consider the said orders, if they are cited after taking a print out from the official website. The said orders are also available before the trial Court from the official website and there can be a counter verification to find out whether such an order is actually uploaded to the official website or not. In this backdrop, there is no harm if such a print out from the official website is placed before this Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Civil Application No. 411 of 2018 in Second Appeal No. 157 of 2017

Decided On: 19.03.2018

 Ibrahim Sk. Rasool Vs. Mohommad Zahir Mohammad Sharif and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2018(5) MHLJ 455

Print Page

Whether family court can take into consideration unsigned closure report?

 Reading of the examination-in-chief would show that PW-2 Renuka Singh, Inspector, UP Police has categorically deposed that she was in-charge of the Women Cell in Sector 14A, Noida UP and had seen the photocopy of the closure report, which was prepared and typed by her (Emphasis added). In her cross-examination, she testified that it was correct that the closure report was not signed by her but she volunteered to say that ordinarily such reports are signed and admitted and the original may contain her signatures.

11. Sections 14 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, read as under: “14. Application of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.-A Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872). "

…..

“20. Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”

12. Reading of Section 14 makes it abundantly clear that the Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may in its opinion would assist it to deal effectually with the dispute.

13. The present case is on a much better footing as the PW-2 has admitted that she prepared and typed the closure report, thus to say that the closure report is false and fabricated is an argument without any force.

Accordingly, we find no infirmity with the order passed by the Family Court.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Date of Judgment: 16th August, 2018

 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 42/2018

SANGEETA GERA  Vs SANJEEV GERA

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

Print Page

Whether court of first instance can reconsider its order regarding admission of any instrument in evidence?

Section 58(2) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act lays down that such Court to which reference is made, is of the opinion that the instrument should not have been admitted in evidence without payment of duty and penalty under Section 34, or without payment of a higher duty and penalty than those paid, that Court i.e. the Appellate Court or the Court to which reference is made may record declaration to that effect and determine the amount of duty with which such instrument is chargeable and may further pass orders as mentioned in Clause (i) and (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act. The term "if such Court" in Sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act refers to the Appellate Court or the Court to which the reference is made by the Court of first instance as mentioned in Subsection (1) to Section 58 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act. Section 58(2) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act does not enable the Court of first instance to reconsider its order regarding admission of any instrument in evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 980/2016

Decided On: 18.04.2017

 Sushilabai  Vs. Abhimanyu Hasanand Kukreja and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Z.A. Haq, J.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 734

Print Page