9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Request for admission and/or denial of documents under Order 12 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Suit for recovery of damages for wrongful reduction in rank. 3. Filing of unsigned copies of documents and applications for admission and/or denial. 4. Opposition to the applications by the defendants. 5. Requirement of certified copies for admission and/or denial. 6. Interpretation of Order 12 Rules 2 and 3A. 7. Definition of 'document' and relevance of Evidence Act. 8. Proper documents for admission and/or denial. 9. Prohibition on production of unsigned plain copies. 10. Primary and secondary evidence from another suit's file. 11. Judicial interpretation of 'copy' in statutes. 12. Application of rules of statutory interpretation. Analysis: The revision petition was filed by the plaintiff seeking admission and/or denial of documents under Order 12 Rule 2, which was declined by the lower court. The plaintiff's suit aimed at recovering damages for wrongful reduction in rank, with a related suit pending in a higher court challenging the removal from service. The plaintiff filed unsigned copies of documents and sought admission and/or denial from the defendants, which was opposed on grounds of lack of certification and proper procedure for discovery and inspection. The court upheld the objection, requiring certified copies for admission and/or denial, delaying the final disposition pending filing of authenticated copies. The interpretation of Order 12 Rules 2 and 3A was debated, with the plaintiff arguing that certified copies were not mandatory for admission and/or denial. However, the court emphasized the need for proper documents that can be legally acted upon and adduced in evidence, highlighting the distinction between costs of proving documents and costs of procuring them. The court clarified that the definition of 'document' includes only those that can be legally adduced in evidence, necessitating certified copies for admission and/or denial. The court further discussed the prohibition on production of unsigned plain copies and the requirement for primary or secondary evidence from another suit's file. It was emphasized that only certified copies or original documents could be admitted as secondary evidence, with plain unsigned copies being legally forbidden. The court justified the need for proper documents before calling upon the opposite party to admit and/or deny, ensuring the legality and admissibility of evidence in the suit. Regarding the interpretation of statutes, the court cited a Supreme Court decision on the meaning of 'copy' in statutes, emphasizing the need for authenticated copies for legal validity. Applying rules of statutory interpretation, the court concluded that only proper documents that can be legally adduced in evidence should be subject to admission and/or denial, dismissing the plaintiff's application for lack of certified copies. The court found no legal error in the lower court's order and upheld the requirement for certified copies, dismissing the revision petition with costs to abide by the suit's result.
|
