GOWRAMMA Vs. B MUNISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners being the plaintiffs are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 02.08.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure-F whereby the learned XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru has issued the following direction:

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that the impugned order is contrary to law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of JAVERCHAND AND ORS., vs. PUKHRAJ SURANA, AIR 1961 SC 1655 inasmuch as the said original document having already been marked in another suit on O.S.No.15208/2001, its certified copy becomes admissible by way of secondary evidence by virtue of Sections 63, 65 and 74 of the Indian Evidence Act; if a document is already marked in evidence even in other suit, a copy of such document is admissible in evidence in the suit in question. So arguing, he seeks invalidation of the impugned order.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents contends that the decision cited by the petitioners' side is confined to fact matrix of the case in which the law is laid down; if a document is marked in a other suit, its copy has to be permitted to be marked in the evidence of the present suit is not the ratio of the said decision; whether document can be admitted to a evidence or not has to be adjudged independently in this suit since these respondents were not parties to the other suits; even otherwise also there is no justification for not producing the original document in the evidence in this suit after retrieving the same from the record of other suit, leaving a certified copy thereof. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.