Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Karthik Gangadhar Bhat, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the trial court that required him to file an application for permission to lead secondary evidence. The respondents were Nirmala Namdeo Wagh and Ashwini Audumar Khune. The core legal issue was whether a party must seek prior permission from the court before adducing secondary evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872. The petitioner argued that no such application is required, relying on the binding precedent in Indian Overseas Bank v Triokal Textile Industries. The respondents did not contest the legal position. The court, per Justice G.S. Patel, held that the trial court's insistence on an application was entirely wrong and contrary to settled law. The court emphasized that a party may lead secondary evidence before the judge recording evidence, and any objection must be decided by that judge. The court quashed the trial court's order and directed that the petitioner be permitted to lead secondary evidence without any prior application. The judgment also deprecated the persistent practice of trial courts ignoring binding precedents on this issue.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Secondary Evidence - No Prior Application Required - Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 63, 65 - The court held that a party desiring to lead secondary evidence need not file any application for permission; it is sufficient to tender the evidence before the judge recording evidence, who will decide on objections if raised. The trial court's insistence on such an application is contrary to settled law. (Paras 2-5) B) Civil Procedure - Trial Court Practice - Misconceived Applications - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court deprecated the practice of filing chamber summons or applications for leave to lead secondary evidence, noting that such applications are unnecessary and misconceived, relying on Indian Overseas Bank v Triokal Textile Industries. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a party seeking to lead secondary evidence must file a prior application for permission before the trial court.
Final Decision
The impugned order of the trial court is quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the petitioner to lead secondary evidence without requiring any prior application. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Secondary evidence
- No application required
- Trial court error
- Evidence Act 1872 Section 65
- Binding precedent
