Whether admission of documents may amount to admission of its truth?

Thus, the question that arises for consideration is whether in absence of any oral evidence having been tendered by the appellants, and especially in absence of putting their own defence to the respondent during his cross examination in the Court, what is the effect of documents filed by appellants and marked as Exhibits.

21.Despite our persistent requests made to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants they have not been able to show compliance of Order XII Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, meaning thereby that there has not been any compliance thereof.

22.Order XII, Rules 1 and 2 appearing in the Code of Civil Procedure reads as thus:

"ORDER XII ADMISSIONS

1. Notice of admission of case. - Any party to a suit may give notice, by his pleading, or othewise in writing, that he admits the truth of the whole or any part of the case of any other party.

2. Notice to admit documents. - Either party may call upon the other party to admit, within seven days from the date of service of the notice any document, saving all just exceptions; and in case of refusal or neglect to admit, after such notice, the costs of proving any such document shall be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, what- ever the result of the suit may be, unless the Court otherwise directs; and no costs of proving any document shall be allowed unless such notice is given, except where the omission to give the notice is, in the opinion of the Court, a saving of expense."

23.It is also necessary to mention here that Rule 2A of Order XII of the CPC deals with the situation where notice of admission as contemplated in Order XII Rule 2 of the CPC has been served but is not denied then the same shall be deemed to have been admitted. Similarly, Rule 3A of the aforesaid Order grants power to the Court to admit any document in evidence, even if no notice has been served. The aforesaid provisions of law have been brought in the Code vide Amendment by Act No. 104 of 1976, w.e.f. 1.2.1977.

24.Records do not reveal that any such procedure was adopted either by the appellants or by the Trial Court to prove the documents filed by the appellants and mark them as Exhibits. Thus, no advantage thereof could be accrued to the appellants, even if it is assumed that said documents have been admitted by respondent and were then exhibited and marked.
We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. As has been mentioned herein above, despite perusal of the record, we have not been able to come to know as to under what circumstances respondent plaintiff had admitted those documents. Even otherwise, his admission of those documents cannot carry the case of the appellants any further and much to the prejudice of the respondent.
Under the Law of Evidence also, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth. Documents having not been produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the Court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a court.

 REPORTABLE

Supreme Court of India

L.I.C. Of India & Anr vs Ram Pal Singh Bisen on 16 March, 2010

Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy, Deepak Verma

           C.A. No.893 of 2007                          

Citation:2010(2) ALLMR970

Print Page

Admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth

 As has been held by the Apex Court in LICI Vs. Rampal Singh Bisen reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491, admission of documents in evidence does not amount to its proof, in other words, merely making of exhibit or a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. The documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner was also required to be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence act which he failed to do. Under the Law of Evidence it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may also to admission of contents but not its truth. Apart from the aforesaid position of the case, the documents were also not produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act. Needless to say that the contents of the documents cannot be proved by merely filing in a Court.

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) NO.22/2014

 Rezia Khatun, V The Union of India,

BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA

Date of Judgment : .03.2014

Read original judgment here; click here

Print Page