Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Indian Overseas Bank, filed a Chamber Summons No.1014 of 2006 seeking leave to lead secondary evidence in a suit pending before the Bombay High Court. The court, presided by Justice S.J. Vazifdar, held that such a Chamber Summons is not necessary and is misconceived. The court clarified that a party desiring to lead secondary evidence must do so before the Judge recording the evidence. It is the Judge recording evidence who must decide, if any objection is raised, whether to admit the secondary evidence. If evidence is led before a Commissioner, the objection to secondary evidence can only be recorded and not decided by the Commissioner; it is then the Judge hearing the suit who decides the objection. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons was dismissed as misconceived.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Secondary Evidence - Chamber Summons - A Chamber Summons seeking leave to lead secondary evidence is not necessary and is misconceived. The party must lead secondary evidence before the Judge recording evidence, who decides on admissibility if objection is raised. If evidence is led before a Commissioner, objections are recorded and decided by the Judge hearing the suit. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Chamber Summons seeking leave to lead secondary evidence is maintainable.
Final Decision
Chamber Summons dismissed as misconceived. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Secondary evidence
- Chamber Summons
- Evidence Act
- 1872
- Procedure for leading evidence
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (08) 78
Mr. Parag Patil i/b Thakordar & Madgaonkar for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for recovery or other relief (not specified in text).
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought leave to lead secondary evidence via Chamber Summons.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff desired to lead secondary evidence in the suit.
Issues
Whether a Chamber Summons seeking leave to lead secondary evidence is maintainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Patil, counsel for Plaintiff, stated that Chamber Summons No.1014 of 2006 has been taken out to lead secondary evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
A Chamber Summons seeking leave to lead secondary evidence is not necessary and is misconceived. A party must lead secondary evidence before the Judge recording evidence, who decides on admissibility if objection raised. If evidence is led before a Commissioner, objections are recorded and decided by the Judge hearing the suit.
Judgment Excerpts
A Chamber Summons seeking leave to lead secondary evidence is not necessary. The proceeding is in fact misconceived.
A party desiring to lead secondary evidence must do so before the Judge recording the evidence.
It is the Judge recording evidence who must decide, if any objection as raised, whether or not to admit the secondary evidence in evidence.
Procedural History
Suit No.492 of 1983 was filed. Plaintiff took out Chamber Summons No.1014 of 2006 seeking leave to lead secondary evidence. The court heard the summons and dismissed it as misconceived.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
