Imambandi vs Sheikh Haji Mutsaddi on 28 February, 1918
The discretion of Courts to admit documents has also been considered by the Privy Council in Imambandi v. Mutsaddi (1918) I.L.R. 45 C. 878 : 35 M.L.J. 422 (P.C.). I think, therefore, in the present case the Judge was wrong in summarily rejecting the documents which were tendered at the date of the hearing. The difficulty was mainly caused by the procedure adopted by the Vakil for the appellants who assumed that there was some default and put in a petition for the admission of these documents. He should also have put in his clients in the box and proved the facts, but he adduced no evidence. Having regard to these facts and to the unsatisfactory way in which the case has been disposed of in the absence of important documents, I think that the proper course will be to reverse the decree of the lower Court and to send the case back for disposal directing the Sub-Court, Mayavaram, to receive in evidence the documents sought to be tendered, admitting such documents which are certified copies of public documents and which require no further proof. If there are any other documents which the parties want to' file, I think the Court ought to consider each document on its own merits and receive such documents as to which there is reasonable explanation for non-production, or as to which there can be no doubt as to genuineness. He will pass the necessary orders under Order 13, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code or the Civil Rules of Practice before fixing a date for the trial.