Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Rakesh Chandra Mittal And Ors. vs Addl. District Magistrate And Anr. on 15 April, 2004
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have
perused the order impugned as well as judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachla Gounder
(supra) and judgment of co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case
of Ramesh Chandra & Others (supra).
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & ... on 8 October, 2003
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have
perused the order impugned as well as judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachla Gounder
(supra) and judgment of co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case
of Ramesh Chandra & Others (supra).
The Roman Catholic Mission vs State Of Madras And Another on 14 January, 1966
"20. The learned counsel for the
defendant-respondent has relied on The
Roman Catholic Mission Vs. The State of
Madras & Anr. AIR 1966 SC 1457 in
support of his submission that a document
not admissible in evidence, though brought
on record, has to be excluded from
consideration. We do not have any dispute
with the proposition of law so laid down in
the abovesaid case. However, the present
4
one is a case which calls for the correct
position of law being made precise.
Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility
of evidence should be taken when it is
tendered and not subsequently. The
objections as to admissibility of documents
in evidence may be classified into two
classes:- (i) an objection that the
document which is sought to be proved is
itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii)
where the objection does not dispute the
admissibility of the document in evidence
but is directed towards the mode of proof
alleging the same to be irregular or
insufficient. In the first case, merely
because a document has been marked as
'an exhibit', an objection as to its
admissibility is not excluded and is
available to be raised even at a later stage
or even in appeal or revision. In the latter
case, the objection should be taken before
the evidence is tendered and once the
document has been admitted in evidence
and marked as an exhibit, the objection
that it should not have been admitted in
evidence or that the mode adopted for
proving the document is irregular cannot
be allowed to be raised at any stage
subsequent to the marking of the
document as an exhibit. The later
proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial
test is whether an objection, if taken at the
appropriate point of time, would have
enabled the party tendering the evidence
to cure the defect and resort to such mode
of proof as would be regular. The omission
to object becomes fatal because by his
failure the party entitled to object allows
the party tendering the evidence to act on
an assumption that the opposite party is
not serious about the mode of proof. On
the other hand, a prompt objection does
not prejudice the party tendering the
evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it
enables the Court to apply its mind and
pronounce its decision on the question of
admissibility then and there; and secondly,
in the event of finding of the Court on the
mode of proof sought to be adopted going
against the party tendering the evidence,
the opportunity of seeking indulgence of
the Court for permitting a regular mode or
5
method of proof and thereby removing the
objection raised by the opposite party, is
available to the party leading the evidence.
Such practice and procedure is fair to both
the parties. Out of the two types of
objections, referred to hereinabove, in the
later case, failure to raise a prompt and
timely objection amounts to waiver of the
necessity for insisting on formal proof of a
document, the document itself which is
sought to be proved being admissible in
evidence. In the first case, acquiescence
would be no bar to raising the objection in
superior Court."
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1