Skip to content


Kishanlal Vs. Firm Ramchandermal Jagannath - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 28 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Raj216
ActsEvidence Act, 1872 - Sections 77
AppellantKishanlal
RespondentFirm Ramchandermal Jagannath
Advocates: D.R. Gupta, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....ordinance, 1949 (no. 40 of 1949) read with amendment ordinance no. 12 of 1950. in a suit filed on the basis of a decree of a court at agra, the plaintiff produced a certified copy of the decree and an objection was raised by the opposite side that a certified copy was not admissible into evidence without a certificate under clause (6) of section 78, evidence act. the trial court disallowed the objection but on appeal the civil judge, dholpur, ordered that the certified copyproduced by the plaintiff be returned to him for obtaining the requisite certificate. against this order the plaintiff went in appeal to the high court of the former state of dholpur and it was decided by that court that according to the practice in vogue in that state no certificate of the political.....
Judgment:

Ranawat, J.

1. This revision application was filed in the Court of the Ijlas Khas of the former State of Dholpur and this Court has received it on its file by virtue of the Rajasthan Appeals and Petitions (Discontinuance) Ordinance, 1949 (No. 40 of 1949) read with Amendment Ordinance No. 12 of 1950. In a suit filed on the basis of a decree of a Court at Agra, the plaintiff produced a certified copy of the decree and an objection was raised by the opposite side that a certified copy was not admissible into evidence without a certificate under Clause (6) of Section 78, Evidence Act. The trial Court disallowed the objection but on appeal the Civil Judge, Dholpur, ordered that the certified copyproduced by the plaintiff be returned to him for obtaining the requisite certificate.

Against this order the plaintiff went in appeal to the High Court of the former State of Dholpur and it was decided by that Court that according to the practice in vogue in that state no certificate of the Political Agent was necessary. The learned counsel of the defendant has strenuously argued that according to Section 78, Evidence Act as applied to the then Dholpur State a certificate from the Political Agent was required to make the certified copy produced by the plaintiff admissible into evidence.

2. The law has undergone much change since the time this suit was filed. Now Agra Court cannot be considered to be a foreign Court for purposes of this suit. No Political Agent now exists who would give a certificate as required by Section 78(6), Evidence Act. The State of Rajasthan is now a part of the Indian Union and is in this respect in the same position as any other State in India. The question whether a certificate under Section 78(6) was necessary in this case at the time the suit was filed has now lost its importance and if a decision is to be given on that point it would only be of an academical value. A certified copy of a decree of a Court at Agra can now be admitted' into evidence in a Court in Rajasthan according to Section 77, Indian Evidence Act. It is not necessary for this court now to enter into any discussion on the point which has been raised in this revision and we would therefore dismiss this revision application, without expressing any opinion on the question of the necessity of a certificate under Section 78(6), Evidence Act. The trial Court would proceed with the case in the light of the law as it stands now. As the other party has not put in any appearance before us there will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //