Nazir Mohamed vs J.Kamala And Ors. on 27 August, 2020
[32] Keeping in mind the above principles as
delineated in Nazir Mohamed (supra), in my considered
view, in the instant appeal none of the proposed substantial
questions of law as reproduced hereinabove constitute
substantial question of law. The learned trial court had
arrived at an erroneous finding on appreciating the true
meaning and spirit of Section-67 and Section-68 of the
Indian Evidence Act. The question tried to be raised
centering around Section-67 and Section-68 of the Evidence
Act, does not allow this Court to take any alternative view,
and leaves no room to arrive at a different finding than that
Page 25 of 26
of the findings arrived at by the learned First Appellate
Court. The provision of Sections-67 and 68 are clear and
unambiguous. The learned trial court has failed to apply his
mind while appreciating the essentialities of Section-67 of
the Evidence Act and the instant appeal does not give any
scope to further debate about the requirements of Section-
67 and Section-68 of the Indian Evidence Act which has
already been well settled by a wealth of decision of the
Apex Court. Thus, I am unable to trace out any such
question which may be considered as a substantial question
of law to admit this appeal.