AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Vazifdar, J.—Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff states that Chamber Summons No. 1014 of 2006 has been taken out to lead secondary evidence.
A Chamber Summons seeking leave to lead secondary evidence is not necessary. The proceeding is in fact misconceived. A party desiring to lead secondary evidence must do so before the Judge recording the evidence. It is the Judge recording evidence who must decide, if any objection as raised, whether or not to admit the secondary evidence in evidence. If evidence is led before a Commissioner the objection to secondary evidence naturally can only be recorded and not decided by the Commissioner. It is then the Judge hearing the suit who decides the objection.
An independent application by way of a Chamber Summons or Notice of Motion is neither required nor desirable. It is always open for the party to lead secondary evidence before the Judge recording the evidence/hearing the matter without taking out such an application.
Accordingly the hearing of the suit need not await the disposal of the Chamber Summons. S.O. to 31-8-2006 for hearing.