Bombay High Court
Balkrishna Sitaram Shetty vs Aruna Shivram Shetty on 12 July, 2021
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
Dusane 1/4 22 CRAst 4611.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.4611 OF 2021
Mr. Balkrishna Sitaram Shetty & Anr. .... Applicants
Vs.
Mrs. Aruna Shivram Shetty & Ors. .... Respondents
Mr. Diwakar A. Dwivedi for Applicants
Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
Date : 12th JULY, 2021 P.C.:
1. In S.C. Suit No. 3263 of 2014, vide order impugned dated 1st December, 2020, the Judge, City Civil Court ordered exhibiting certain documents, which are true copies of the original documents obtained by the Respondent-Plaintiff under Right to Information Act.
2. While impugning the aforesaid order, Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the Applicants-Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 would ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2021 01:00:27 ::: Dusane 2/4 22 CRAst 4611.2021.doc urge that the Court below committed an error of law by recording a finding that the documents, which are marked as exhibits vide impugned order can also be claimed to be admissible in evidence, irrespective of proving such documents. According to him, the documents, which are placed on record are photocopies of certified documents by the Public Information Officer, supplied under the provisions of Right to Information Act. He would invite attention of this Court to the document i.e. unsigned agreement executed sometime in January, 1976, which is produced as Exhibit "A" before the Court below.
According to him, the view taken by the trial Judge is not in tune with the principles of Evidence Act.
3. I have appreciated aforesaid submissions of Mr. Dwivedi in the background of provisions of Evidence Act, the requirement thereunder of exhibiting and proving the document.
4. The Court below, in my opinion was justified in recording that by affidavit, the plaintiff has proved that the documents produced are photocopies of the certified copies obtained from the Public ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2021 01:00:27 ::: Dusane 3/4 22 CRAst 4611.2021.doc Information Officer under the provisions of Right to Information Act. The photocopies of the same were also produced on record, which are marked as exhibits. As such, the photocopy of the certified document, which was received from the Public Information Officer are exhibited.
5. In response to the argument canvassed by Mr. Dwivedi, it can be said that merely because the documents are exhibited, that by itself will not mean that the contents in the documents are proved. Unless the contents thereof are duly proved by the Plaintiff or by virtue of legal fiction, such interference cannot be drawn. It is always open for the Applicants- Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to raise appropriate objection to the admissibility of such documents under the Evidence Act in the pending suit particularly having regard to the nature of the document, its status as to whether it is an original or a copy and whether the contents thereof can be proved by adducing evidence by the Plaintiff or his witness.
6. In case, if any such objections are raised in relation to the admissibility of documents, which are permitted to be produced and ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2021 01:00:27 ::: Dusane 4/4 22 CRAst 4611.2021.doc exhibited vide impugned order, it is expected of the Court below to first deal with such objection.
7. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Application stands disposed of.
( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2021 01:00:27 :::