Gurtej Singh Thru Lrs. Balvir Kaur And ORS. v. Gopal Singh Thru Lr Sukhvinder Singh

C.R. No.1158 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1158 of 2016 Date of Decision.16.02.2016 Gurtej Singh now deceased through LRs .......Petitioner Vs.

Gopal Singh now deceased through LR ......Respondent

Present:

Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

I will not make any intervention to the order passed already by the court below allowing for an evidence to be given which is demarcation alleged to have been done by public authority. It is a public document as defined under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act which requires no further proof. If the Court has not allowed for examination of public officer to prove the document, it has done what is appropriate.

2.

The counsel for the petitioner wants me to refer a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others Vs. Yelamarti Satyam and others 1972(4)SCC 562 which says that the document which is exhibited would still require to be proved. Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act says that contents of public document is proof of what it contains and no further proof is necessary. There is nothing stated in the Supreme Court judgment which conflicts with PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.02.17 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.1158 of 2016 -2Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act.

3.

The revision petition is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 16, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.02.17 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document