MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Others vs Mst. NAZIR BEGUM AND Other
This civil petition arose from an order refusing the petitioners (defendants in a suit for permanent injunction) permission to produce certified copies of a power of attorney and a sale deed as secondary evidence at a belated stage of the trial. The plaintiffs had from the outset denied the execution and authenticity of the disputed documents. The trial Court refused the application, and subsequent revision and writ petitions were dismissed. The Supreme Court considered whether a registered document, such as a sale deed or power of attorney whose execution is disputed, qualifies as a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, thereby permitting proof via certified copies as secondary evidence. Dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court held that a private document does not become a public document merely because it is registered under the Registration Act. Consequently, where the execution of a registered document is disputed, it cannot be proved merely by producing certified copies under the pretext of it being a public document.
- Does a private document become a public document merely because it is registered under the Registration Act?
- Can a registered document whose execution is denied by the opposing party be proved by the mere production of certified copies as secondary evidence under Section 74 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Whether the original document executed by an individual and registered constitutes a public record of a private document within the meaning of Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Section 74, Evidence Act 1872
- Section 74(2), Evidence Act 1872
- Section 74(5), Evidence Act 1872
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The petitioners, who are defendant in a suit for permanent injunction instituted on 18-2-1977, had, at the stage when their evidence had been completed and the case had been fixed for recording the statement of their counsel and the evidence of the plaintiffs, moved an application on 9-4-1981 for permission to produce certified copies of (1) power-of- attorney and (2) the sale-deed, on the plea that they could not produce the same earlier through inadvertence. The application was refused by the trial Court. The petitioners' revision before the Additional District Judge having failed, they instituted a writ petition before the Lahore High Court but the same, too, was dismissed in limine. The High Court noticing that the plaintiffs toad from the very outset denied the execution of the documents and challenged their authenticity, expressed the view that the documents not being covered by section 74(5) of the Evidence Act, the same could not be proved by the production. Of certified copies thereof.
2. t he contention is that the documents were public documents covered by subsection (2) o1' section 74 of the Evidence Act and as such secondary evidence could be produced. The contention has no merit. Document '' does cut become a public document merely because it is registered. It had been held in Gopal leas v. Sri Thakurji (AIR 1943 P C 83) that the original receipt executed by an individual and registered tinder the Registration Act is not a public record of private document within section 74(2). By virtue of subsection (5) of Section 74 a registered document has to be one the execution of which is disputed. The High Court was, therefore, justified in upholding the refusal of the petitioners' application. The petition is dismissed.