DEVINDER SINGH Vs. HARMINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Scope of appeals

(2.) The claim was for injuries sustained in a motor accident involving an alleged collision of a motorcycle with the bus owned by an educational institution. The accident was said to have taken place on 26.04.1989, but the FIR relating to the same was made only on 09.08.1989. The vehicle itself had been seized by the police only subsequently and released on supardari to the owner of the bus. Before the arguments of the respective counsel got under way, I had asked the counsel for the claimant to sustain how the case could merely depend on oral evidence when there seemed such a long delay which was unusual if the accident had been true. The counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant made a fervent plea for summoning the criminal court records for doing complete justice and contended that the claimant was not after all pursuing remedy against the owner of the bus and the insurer by willfully imagining that the said bus was involved in the accident. I, therefore, passed an order on 09.03.2011, directing the criminal court records in FIR No. 70 dated 09.08.1989 to be sent for. On receiving the criminal court records, the respective counsel sought for time for inspection of record on 25.03.2011 and made formal opening of the arguments when the counsel for the claimant pointed out to a document found in the criminal court records i.e. a letter of authorization given by the Principal of St. Xavier's School, which was the owner of the bus as relevant for the purpose of the case. The letter purported to give authority to the transport-in-charge of the school to get the bus released from the police and "negotiate with the concerning party". I was of the view that the said letter had bearing to the facts involved in the case about the involvement or otherwise of the bus. Since the document itself had not been exhibited before Court as evidence, but it was part of the criminal court records, I passed an elaborate interim order on 05.04.2011, summoning the author of the letter, the transport- in-charge and the driver of the bus by invoking power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. While referring to the text of Section 165, I had observed,

(3.) All the witnesses being summoned and being present in Court, I had directed oath to be administered by my Court Officer and had put to the witness Shri Andrew J. Gosain questions relating to the document, the opening words of the statement reads as follows: