AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep K. Shinde, J
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Petitioner is defendant no.6 in Regular Civil Suit No. 689 of 2009 instituted by the respondent no.1 herein. The plaintiff sought leave to lead
secondary evidence vide application dated 23rd August, 2012. PetitionerÂdefendant resisted the said application, however, learned Judge overruled
the objections and granted permission to the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence in respect of the documents, i.e. Kabja, hakkasod and kararpatra,
both dated 18th December, 1984. It is against this order, defendant no.6 has preferred this petition.
Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice, the judgment of this Court in the case of Karthik Gangadhar Bhat versus.
Nirmala Namdeo Wagh and anr. reported in 2017 4 Crimes (HC) 536 wherein it is held as under :
“The result of such applications, which as I have noted are misconceived and not maintainable, is that exceedingly peculiar orders are passed either
allowing or disallowing the leave sought. When leave is granted, apparently secondary evidence is then led but that leave is, as we have seen,
completely unnecessary and a party may always place before the trial Court secondary evidence as contemplated by the Evidence Act without such
leave. The result of disallowing the application is even more serious because the evidence in question is wholly excluded from consideration without
the slightest examination of the proposed secondary evidence. There is no question of examining the secondary evidence first at the stage of
considering the application for leave. If the secondary evidence is sufficient to prove the document, then the document must be admitted into evidence.
One of two things happen on any such application: either the secondary evidence is not considered, and the document is shut out, which is wrong, or
the evidence is considered twice over, once for the soÂcalled 'leave' and then again at the time of admitting the document.â€
In view of the law laid down by this Court in the cited judgment, the objection to lead secondary evidence raised by the petitioner stands overruled.
The petitions are therefore dismissed.
The interim relief stands vacated.