5. Ms. Ujwala told me that, with respect to question 1, the burden was on the petitioner. If the petitioner is not authorized to provide secondary evidence of the sworn insurance in question, the petitioner would not be able to justify his or her arguments in favour of facilitating the particular performance of the agreement. … MARKING THE XEROX COPY UN REGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE DTD:23.12.2011 AS EX. D-1 EMPTY ANNEXURE-M DURING THE RACE OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW-1 BY THE HON`BLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE A… 22.7.2016 with the Xerox copy of the unreganted sales contract of 23.12.2011 as Ex. D.1, although it was challenged by counsel for the applicants, that the copy Xerox c… Marking the xerox copy of the unregant sales agreement of 23.12.2011 as ex. D1 as part of PW.1`s evidence is defective and contrary to the documents to be recorded. He`d be furious. 17.
In the absence of significant information on efforts to search the original, the petitioner is not presented because the petitioner did not say in which possession of the original sworn insurance, no notification being issued pursuant to Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, since the legal representatives of the late Abdul Kareem Sab are also not taken into account. since there is no allegation in the motion that the xerox copy is extracted from the original or compared to the original and that it is not possible for the Xerox copy to be compared to the original, the criminal court`s decision to release the A.I. is perfectly valid and is confirmed accordingly. Given the legal and factual matrix of this case, a Xerox copy of the sworn insurance in question cannot be identified at all as evidence. No basis is created for the creation of a right of second recourse. … Mr. Veerapa Padayachi. The courts have ruled below that the ex. A.1 of 15.07.1981 is not at all admissible, since it is only a copy of Xerox.
Although, a xerox copy is… Ex.A.1 is a xerox copy of the original unregistered partitionstat, it is admissible as secondary evidence, since the main evidence, i.e. the original unregistered part… Sed partition of 15.07.1981 Obviously, the act of division in question is Ex.A.1, if the applicant himself declares that it is an unregant document, the document in question is not admissible… Xerox copies . Copies of Xerox are not allowed in evidence other than email transactions. According to Model A3, a copy of the cheque issued by the opposing party in favour of the complainant. The Oppo…
and had not signed the amount. In accordance with his written confirmation, the complainant re-delivered the cheque. The second time, the check popped. Since then, many senior managers of the company… interviewees or not. And there is no evidence before this forum if the complainant brought a civil action against the respondent for recovering that amount.