Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 14/04/2016 and 14/11/2016, passed by the Trial Court, by which, application Exhibit 134 and 136 respectively, filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking leave to place on record the translated copy of a document, have been rejected.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff has placed reliance upon a document which is in Modi script in R.C.S. No. 245/2011, filed for the purposes of seeking injunction, removal of encroachment and for possession. According to the plaintiff, the Modi script emerging from the concerned document renders a meaning, by which, the plaintiff gets a title to the suit property. A translator has translated the said document, copy of which is placed on record. The document is dated 17/06/1905. The said translator was examined before the Trial Court and he has proved the document in Modi script.

5. It emerges from the record that the third witness of the plaintiff was the translator. He has highlighted the contents of the document in Modi script. However, a verbatim translation is not on record.

6. The learned AGP, and the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 have strenuously opposed this petition. However, they have no answer to offer with regard to, what would be the position, if the Trial Court desires to go through every sentence in document which is in Modi script. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5, submits that it was the duty of the plaintiff to ensure that the translation was placed on record and failure on his part therefore, would lead to the dismissal of the suit.

9. Consequentially, the Trial Court shall take the translated copy of the Modi script document on record and subject to the recording of evidence, would grant an Exhibit number to the said document in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act.

10. Since, the plaintiff is being granted the liberty to examine the witness, the defendants will also have the opportunity for further cross-examination, keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case and without laying down any precedent.