Bombay High Court
BALASAHEB RUSTUMRAO PAWADE AND ANOTHERversusKASHIBAI RANGNATH PAWADE
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The application to admit the notarised documents as secondary evidence was rejected because the documents do not meet the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Summary
The petitioners, Balasaheb Rustumrao Pawade and another, filed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order that denied their application to lead secondary evidence in the form of notarised documents (Nos. 3534 of 2012 and 3535 of 2023) in a civil suit. The trial court had examined the applicability of Sections 62 and 63 of the Indian Evidence Act and concluded that the documents did not satisfy the statutory definition of secondary evidence. The High Court reviewed the trial court's reasoning and found no infirmity in its findings. Consequently, the High Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to admit the documents as secondary evidence. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the notarised documents sought to be produced qualify as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 61, 63
Subjects
- secondary evidence
- Indian Evidence Act
- civil suit
- writ petition
- evidence law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:39342
(1) 937 WP 3100 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
937 WRIT PETITION NO. 3100 OF 2024
BALASAHEB RUSTUMRAO PAWADE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
KASHIBAI RANGNATH PAWADE
...
Mr. G. T. Kharate, Advocate for the Petitioners
…
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : 28.08.2026
PER COURT :-
. In Regular Civil Suit No.58 of 2016 pending before learned Civil
Judge Juniro Division Basmat, District Hingoli the defendants filed an
application below Exhibit-57 seeking permission to lead secondary evidence
vide notarised documents bearing Nos.3534 of 2012 and 3535 of 2023. The
said application came to be turned down after hearing both the parties vide
impugned order dated 07.11.2023. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioners
have filed this writ petition.
2. Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the documents
to be tendered in evidence. Section 63 talks about secondary evidence which
reads thus :
(2) 937 WP 3100 OF 2024
“63. Secondary evidence.—Secondary evidence means and
includes—
(1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter
contained;
(2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes
which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and
copies compared with such copies;
(3) copies made from or compared with the original;
(4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did
not execute them;
(5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by
some person who has himself seen it.”
3. Looking to the nature of the documents which are sought to be
produced as secondary evidence, it would apparently show that those
documents do not fulfill the requirements under Section 63 of the 1874 Act.
The Trial Court in paragraph Nos.12 to 14 has elaborately discussed the scope
of Sections 62 and 63 and has observed that the application could not be
allowed. I do not find any infirmity in those findings.
4. Resultantly, no interference by this Court is called for.
5. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW
Checking your session…