K.Mallesh vs K.Narender .
- SCC(2016) 1 SCC 670
- Neutral2015 INSC 774
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an order of the High Court on the admissibility of documents is made at an interlocutory stage while trial is still in progress, the High Court ought not to interfere at such stage. Questions regarding the admissibility, reliability and registrability of documents are to be considered independently and decided at the time of hearing of the trial itself, and not prior thereto.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6841-6842 OF 2008
K. Mallesh ... APPELLANT(S)
VS.
K. Narender and Ors. ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Anil R. Dave, J.
1. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the impugned order, we find that the said
order passed at an interlocutory stage, during the pendency
of the suit. The question is with regard to the
admissibility of two documents.
2. In our opinion the High Court should not have
interfered at the stage when the trial was still in progress.
Therefore, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High
Court without going into the merits of the case. We say that Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by the admissibility, reliability and registrability of the Sarita Purohit Date: 2015.10.29 16:56:50 IST Reason: documents shall be considered independently only at the time
1 of hearing of the trial and not prior thereto. All
questions with regard to the aforesaid issues shall remain
open.
3. The appeals are disposed of as allowed.
4. No order as to costs.
.................J. [ANIL R. DAVE]
..................J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi;
15th October, 2015.
2 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 6841-6842/2008
K.MALLESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
K.NARENDER & ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report)
Date : 15/10/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
For Appellant(s) Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan,Adv.
Ms. Gunet Kaur,Adv.
Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. A.K. Ganguli,Sr.Adv.
Mr. K.Swami,Adv.
Ms. Prabha Swami,Adv.
Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
The appeals are disposed of as allowed in terms of the non-reportable judgement. No order as to costs.
(Anita Malhotra) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar (Non-reportable judgement is placed on the file.)
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free