[1] The sole point in this case is a very simple one and it is whether the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was justified in admitting evidence which became relevant because of the discovery of two documents which had previously been out of the reach of defendant No. 2, who is the appellant before us. We can entertain no doubt that the Judge was entitled to admit the documents. Indeed that is conceded before us. The oral evidence that was admitted was a natural consequence of the admission of the documentary evidence, and we think there can be no legal objection to its admission. If that be so, it is conceded that the findings of the lower Appellate Court are conclusive,
[2] We must, therefore, reverse the judgment of Mr. Justice Digarabar Chatterjee, and restore the decree of the Judicial Commissioner. The respondent before us must pay the costs of both appeals in the High Court.
Shaikh Nura v. Baikuntha Nath Ray
Shaikh Nura v. Baikuntha Nath Ray
(High Court Of Judicature At Calcutta)
No | 30-06-1913
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LAWRENCE JENKINS
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASUTOSH
Eq Citations
- 30 IND. CAS. 398
- LQ/CalHC/1913/365
Head Note
Evidence Act, 1872 — Or. 20 r. 10 — Discovery of documents — Oral evidence admitted in consequence of discovery of documents — Consequence, held, is not hit by law
