Calcutta High Court
Narendra Kumar Berlia vs Om Prakash Berlia & Ors on 18 September, 2018
Author: Moushumi Bhattacharya
Bench: Moushumi Bhattacharya
OD 7
CS 79 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
NARENDRA KUMAR BERLIA
Versus
OM PRAKASH BERLIA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
Date : 18th September, 2018.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Ratul Das,Adv.
Mr. Arnab Sardar, Adv.
Mr. Yashovardhan Kochar, Adv.
Mr. Anirban Ray,Adv.
Mr. Pramit Bag,Adv.
Mr. A.K.Dey,Adv.
Mr. Rupak Ghose,Adv.
Mr. Chayan Gupta,Adv.
Mr. A.K.Dey,Adv.
Mr. Sabyasachi Chioudhury,Adv.
Mr. Syed E. Huda,Adv.
Mr. Tarun Aich,Adv.
Mr. Samit Talukdar,Sr. Adv.
Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharya,Adv.
Mr. S.R. Kakrania,Adv.
Mr. Sanjeeb Seni,Adv.
Ms. R. Shroff,Adv.
The Court :- Counsel for the plaintiff files an affidavit in compliance with the requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Counsel for the plaintiff 2 intends to rely on several inserts in newspapers in 1983 showing that the father of the witness had a social standing in Maharashtra where he used to live. An objection is raised by counsel appearing for the defendant nos. 21 and 22 on the ground that these reports cannot be treated as evidence since the witness is not the author of the inserts sought to be relied on. Reliance is placed on paragraph 25 of AIR 1988 SC 1274 which is as follows:
"25. As to the first, the accused Laxmi Raj Shetty was entitled to tender the newspaper report from the Indian Express of the 29th and the regional newspapers of the 30th along with his statement under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, both the accused at the stage of their defence in denial of the charge had summoned the editors of Tamil dailies Malai Murasu and Makkal Kural and the news reporters of the Indian Express and Dina Thanthi to prove the contents of the facts stated in the news item but they dispensed with their examination on the date fixed for the defendant's evidence. We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in the news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in S. 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under S. 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proof of the facts reported therein."
In the view of this court, the contention that the father of the witness had a social standing is an issue which can be considered at the time of arguments and exhibits for that purpose alone is not required at this stage.
The examination-in-chief of the plaintiff's witness will continue on 4th October, 2018.
(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.) s.chandra/sp3