BALWINDER SINGH Vs. PRIYANKA GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed the order dtd. 18/9/2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Moga, vide which application under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act for leading secondary evidence by the plaintiffs was allowed.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed an application for production of gift deed by alleging that the same was in possession of the defendants. The said fact was denied by the defendants, rather the same was claimed to be in possession of one Harinder Singh. Gift deed is a registered document. The validity of the gift deed has been denied by the defendants and the same was claimed to be fraudulent having executed on account of misrepresentation and undue influence practices upon Daya Singh deceased.

(3.) In Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 859, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that the procedure has been set for receiving the documents when the same is objected to during trial. The Hon'ble Court has castigated the practice of holding up trial on objections taken at the time of tendering of documents in evidence. At that stage, asking the Court to pass an appropriate order on the objection was categorized as an 'archaic practice'. Leading of evidence at the stage pursuant to passing of order could not crystallize any substantial right in favour of the defendants, rather the evidence led by the parties would be tested by the Court at the threshold of admissibility, validity and genuineness in terms of its execution at a later stage. In any case, the later stage would be the relevant stage for lawful consideration of such a criteria in terms of validity, admissibility and genuineness of the document.