Uttarakhand High Court

SA/39/2025 on 15 May, 2025

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

                   Office Notes, reports,
                   orders or proceedings
SL.
No.
         Date        or directions and                        COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
                   Registrar's order with
                         Signatures
      15.05.2025                            S.A. NO. 39 of 2025

                                            Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Ms. Ananya Jain proxy counsel for Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent.

3. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithoragarh in Civil Suit No. 42 of 2022, whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed as well as the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2025 passed by learned District Judge, Pithoragarh in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2024, whereby the appeal filed against judgment and decree dated 17.08.2024 has been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the impugned judgments and decree are unsustainable in the eyes of law as the same have been passed against the facts and evidence on record; that, the court below erred in holding that the copies of the measurement book submitted by the appellant/plaintiff were not certified copies and therefore, not admissible as secondary evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and decree, however, she seeks time to file reply/objection to the memo of appeal.

6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the matter needs deliberation.

7. Admit the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

(a) Whether a document can never be proved by way of secondary evidence i.e. by producing a photocopy of the same specially when the original of the same is possessed by the defendant itself, and the same has been not only been admitted by the defendant in its written statement was proved by the testimony of PW2 as well?

(b) Whether a document being obtained under Right to Information Act is not a certified copy, much less akin to certified copy and can never be read in evidence specially when the same belongs to the defendant itself and original of the same is possessed by the defendant itself?

(c) Whether a suit can be dismissed holding the same to be barred by limitation by invoking Article 18 of the Limitation Act, in the absence of there being any pleading, evidence and finding to the effect that whether or not time was fixed for payment between the parties.

8. List this case on 29.07.2025.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 15.05.2025 Mamta