In respect of second question of law examined by the High Court that the Plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation is based upon the notice dated 23rd September, 1960 produced in proceedings before the Reference Court as Ex. A-3. The reference to such notice was made in an application for amendment of the written statement Under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court allowed the Defendant to raise a plea of limitation without amending the written statement. Thus, the notice (Ex. A-3) in proceedings before the Reference Court was never produced in evidence in the suit for possession and such primary evidence was not before the Court. In terms of Section 62 of the Evidence Act, primary evidence means a document itself produced for inspection by the Court. Section 64 of the Evidence Act stipulates that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in certain cases when secondary evidence can be led. The Defendant has not led any evidence, including secondary evidence of the alleged notice said to be served by the Plaintiffs. In the absence of primary or secondary evidence available in the suit for possession, the reference to such notice as the starting point of limitation is clearly erroneous and not sustainable.
{Para 28}
No comments:
Post a Comment