Order 3

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1
Coram : R. R. Kale,
Judge, C.R. No. 36.
Date : 11/07/2025.
L.E. Suit No. 19 of 2023
(CNR No. :- MHSCA3-000200-2023)
Order on List vide Exh. 18 with regard to admissibility of the
documents.
Perused the documents filed by the plaintiff along-with list
vide Exh. 18 and say filed thereon by the defendant below Exh. 19. I
have gone through the evidence affidavit of P.W. 1 Mr. Pradeep
Radharaman Ladiwal filed at Exh. 17.
2. Heard both sides at length.
3. The documents produced at Sr. No. 1 appear to be certified
copies of agreement certified by plaintiff’s bank along-with the copies of
share certificate. The defendant has not admitted the said documents
mainly on the ground that, the documents are certified copies of the
bank without having right to issue the same. It appears that, concerned
Bank has issued the certified copies of the documents and the witness is
not the author of these documents. Therefore, these documents cannot
be exhibited. The plaintiff has to examine the concerned witness to
prove these documents. Hence, these documents be marked as Article-X
(collectively).
4. The document produced at Sr. No. 2 appears to be xerox copy
of notice dated 08/06/2012. The defendant has not admitted the said
document mainly on the ground that, it is the xerox copy. P.W. 1 Pradeep
(Exh. 17) has stated about the said document in para No. 6 of of his
evidence affidavit. It appears that, he has not produced the office copy
of the notice dated 08/06/2012. Therefore, the xerox copy of the office
copy of the notice cannot be exhibited. Hence, it be marked as
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Article-X1.
5. The document produced at Sr. No. 3 appears to be xerox copy
of reply dated 16/07/2012. The defendant has not admitted the said
document. The witness has not produced the original copy of reply sent
to the plaintiff. Therefore, xerox copy of the original reply cannot be
admitted in evidence. Hence, it be marked as Article-X2.
6. The document produced at Sr. No. 4 appears to be xerox copy
of letter dated 20/07/2012. The defendant has not admitted the said
document mainly on the ground that, same is xerox copy. The witness
has not produced the office copy of the letter. Therefore, xerox copy of
the office copy of the letter cannot be admitted in evidence. Hence, it be
marked as Article-X3.
7. The documents produced at Sr. No. 5 appear to be
computerized copy of maintenance bills dated 31/10/2022 and
31/10/2023. The defendant has not admitted the said documents. It
appears that, these copies are computerized and the witness has not
produced the certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, these documents cannot be exhibited.
Hence, said documents be marked as Article-X4 (collectively).
8. The document produced at Sr. No. 6 appears to be
computerized copy of electricity bill. The defendant has not admitted
the said document. It appears that, this copy is computerized and the
witness has not produced the necessary certificate under Section 65-B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, this document cannot be
exhibited. Hence, it be marked as Article-X5.
9. The documents produced at Sr. No. 7 appear to be xerox copy
of notice dated 14/01/2023 and the copy of acknowledgment card. The
defendant has not admitted the said documents. It appears that, the
witness has produced the xerox copies of the legal notice and
-- 2 of 3 --
3
acknowledgment card. The office copy of the notice is not produced as
well as original acknowledgment card is also not there. Therefore, these
documents cannot be exhibited. Hence, these documents are marked as
Article-X6 (collectively).
(Matter be kept for cross-examination of the P.W. 1 on next
date.)
(R. R. Kale)
Date : 11/07/2025. Judge, C.R. No. 36.
-- 3 of 3 --