Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Mineral Development ... vs Mahavir Lignite & 3 on 15 September, 2015
Author: S.G.Shah
Bench: S.G.Shah
C/SCA/8322/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8322 of 2013
==========================================================
GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED....Petitioner(s)
Versus
MAHAVIR LIGNITE & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARESH M DARJI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR.D K.PUJ, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
SERVED BY AFFIX(N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Date : 15/09/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Paresh Darji for respondent no.3 and learned advocate Ms.Niyati K.Shah for Mr.D.K.Puj, learned advocate for respondent no.4. Perused the record. Considering the facts and circumstances, which is emerging from the record, at present, I do not want to discuss and determine any issue at this stage so far as admissibility of secondary evidence is concerned, for the simple reason that before pressing to exhibiting and admitting any such document as a secondary evidence, it would be appropriate for the plaintiff to first call upon the relevant witness to first prove the contents of the document. In this case, transactions which are to be proved from such document, can certainly be proved by evidence of officers from the bank, because the documents in question are demand-draft, stop payment letters etc. It is clear and obvious that evidence regarding such document can be certainly adduced by the Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Thu Sep 17 02:00:25 IST 2015 C/SCA/8322/2013 ORDER competent witness of concerned bank from their record. Once such evidence is available on record, then, plaintiff would be entitled to press for exhibiting such document as a secondary evidence and at that stage trial Court has to consider the request afresh without being influence by the impugned order. So far as other documents, which are not concerned with the transaction through or from bank are concerned, it is for the plaintiff to prove it by appropriate and suitable oral evidence before pressing it to exhibiting the same.
2. It is to be noted that at present, such documents are practically against respondents no.1 and 2, but they have been though served have chosen to remain away from this litigation whereas respondents no.3 and 4, who are present before this Court submits that they are not concerned with such document, but objecting to allow such documents in evidence as a secondary evidence considering the fact that they are simple xerox copy.
3. However, in view of what is discussed herein above, this Special Civil application is disposed of in above terms. To that extent, the impugned order is quashed and set-aside to enable the trial Court to deal with such issue afresh as directed herein above.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) binoy Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Thu Sep 17 02:00:25 IST 2015