PUSHKAR Vs. SNEHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition challenges the order dtd. 18/7/2023 below Exh.29 - an application filed by the present petitioners for direction to the plaintiffs to produce certain documents. It is contended, that since the respondents / plaintiffs have raised a plea of granting financial assistance to the respondent No.2, from time to time, the documents, which disclosed that she had substantial income so as to advance financial assistance to the respondent No. 2 would be necessary to establish the position. The rejection of the application is being questioned on the ground, that placing of those documents by the respondent No.1 / plaintiff is material. What is material to note is, that the burden to demonstrate and prove that the respondent No. 1 / plaintiff was possessed of sufficient means so as to claim that she had advanced financial assistance to the respondent No.2 by means of documents, is upon the plaintiff / respondent No.1. The petitioners / defendants cannot insist in what mode the possessing of sufficient means to advance financial assistance can be proved by the plaintiffs. Though the petitioners / defendants may be of the opinion that this can be proved by the plaintiff / respondent No.1 by a particular mode by placing on record documents as are sought for, that by itself, would not be a ground for the direction to place them on record. It is for the plaintiff to discharge the burden. In case, the plaintiff does not demonstrate her financial ability to advance the financial assistance to the respondent No.2 by cogent documents, it is open for the Court to draw adverse inference against her and pass appropriate orders in that regard on her failure, considering which, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order dtd. 18/7/2023.

(2.) The petition also challenges the order dtd. 20/06/2023 below Exh.27 - an application filed by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for raising objections to the documents at Sr. No.1 to 8 of the list of documents at Exh.25 on the ground that the respondent No.1 / plaintiff is not a signatory to those documents and is merely a recipient and therefore, in law would not be entitled to prove the contents, without examining the person, who has written those documents. No doubt, true that the respondent No.1 / plaintiff cannot prove the contents of the documents at Sr. No.1 to 8, being mere recipient of the same, however, that does not mean that the contents thereof cannot be proved in any other mode permissible in law. It is the settled position of law that mere marking of the document does not dispense with the proof of the same and even if the documents at Sr. No.1 to 8 with Exh.25 are even if marked as exhibits in the evidence of the plaintiff / respondent No.1, that by itself would not mean that the contents thereof have been proved. In that light of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order dtd. 20/06/2023.

(3.) The petition is, therefore dismissed. No costs.