Bombay High Court Allows Production of Documents in Civil Suit, Distinguishing Between Production and Exhibition of Evidence. Trial Court's Refusal to Allow Filing of Certified Copies Set Aside as Production Cannot Be Refused Even if Documents May Not Be Admissible Under Section 79 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, original plaintiffs in a civil suit, filed an application seeking permission to file certified copies of certain documents. The learned trial judge rejected the application on the ground that the documents could not be read in evidence in view of Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The petitioners challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court held that the trial judge failed to appreciate that production of documents on record and allowing them to be exhibited are distinct from each other. The court may not give evidentiary value to those documents or allow them to be exhibited, but production of documents on record cannot be refused. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the trial court was directed to allow production of the documents listed in the application (exhibit 315) and consider the question of exhibiting them separately. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Distinction between Production and Exhibition - The trial court erred in refusing production of documents on the ground that they cannot be read in evidence under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Production of documents on record and allowing them to be exhibited are distinct. The court may not give evidentiary value or allow exhibition, but production cannot be refused. (Paras 4-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court can refuse production of documents on record on the ground that they cannot be read in evidence under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The trial court shall allow production of documents enlisted with application (exhibit 315) and may consider the question of exhibiting those documents in evidence separately. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Production of documents on record and allowing them to be exhibited are distinct
  • Production of documents cannot be refused even if they may not be admissible as evidence
  • Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act
  • 1872 does not bar production of documents
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (06) 84

Writ Petition No. 799 of 2014

2014-06-27

A. P. Bhangale, J.

V. K. Paliwal for petitioners, S. V. Sirpurkar for respondents no. 1 to 14, A. R. Fule for respondent no. 15

Chanchal d/o Manakchand Sharma and Vijay s/o Manakchand Sharma

Gangaram Dajiba Nagare (since deceased) through legal representatives and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition challenging trial court order refusing permission to file certified copies of documents.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of trial court order and direction to allow production of documents.

Filing Reason

Trial court rejected application for permission to file certified copies of documents on ground that they cannot be read in evidence under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Previous Decisions

Trial court rejected the application (exhibit 315) for permission to file certified copies of documents.

Issues

Whether the trial court can refuse production of documents on record on the ground that they cannot be read in evidence under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that production of documents on record and allowing them to be exhibited are distinct; trial court may not give evidentiary value but cannot refuse production.

Ratio Decidendi

Production of documents on record and allowing them to be exhibited are distinct. The court may not give evidentiary value to documents or allow them to be exhibited, but production of documents on record cannot be refused.

Judgment Excerpts

Learned trial Judge should have appreciated that production of documents on record and allowing them to be exhibited are distinct from each other. Production of documents on record cannot be refused.

Procedural History

The petitioners (original plaintiffs) filed an application (exhibit 315) before the trial court seeking permission to file certified copies of certain documents. The trial court rejected the application. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 79
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Production of Documents in Civil Suit, Distinguishing Between Production and Exhibition of Evidence. Trial Court's Refusal to Allow Filing of Certified Copies Set Aside as Production Cannot Be Refused Even if Documents May No...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Against Bank Attachment During Pendency of Appeal — Income Tax Recovery Must Await Appellate Decision. The Court held that recovery proceedings under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be pu...