JITENDER SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The counsel for the petitioner contends that observation of the Court below with regard to admissibility of document is erroneous, in view of the fact that the report of the local commissioner is not of the instant case but of some other case and therefore, it cannot be treated to be a primary evidence and objection could not have been rejected. The rejection of the objection is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(2.) I have gone through the impugned order and the impugned order reads thus:-

(3.) I am of the view that Court below ought not to have rejected the objections as he remained oblivious of the provisions of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is settled law that mere exhibition of the document does not dispense with proof of the same in view of the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Sait Tarajee Khimchand And Ors. vs Yelamarti Satyam Alias Satteyya and others, 1971 AIR(SC) 1865, reiterated in many subsequent judgments. I am of the view that the Court below ought not to have rejected the objections and should have kept it open for adjudication at the time of final arguments. The Courts below is directed to be more wary in the mode and manner of deciding the objection.