Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law relating to Evidence

Rohan sues Sameer on a written lease. The original lease is shown to be with Sameer, and Sameer does not produce it even after the notice required under section 64. Rohan offers an oral account of the lease's contents by a witness who read it. What is the position?

The oral account is admissible. Under section 60(a), where the original is with the opposing party who fails to produce it after notice, any secondary evidence is admissible, and section 58 treats an oral account by someone who has seen the document as secondary evidence.

  1. AInadmissible, because only certified copies can be given when the original is withheld
  2. BAdmissible, because when the original is in the possession of the opposite party and not produced after notice, any secondary evidence of its contents is admissibleCorrect
  3. CInadmissible, because oral accounts are never secondary evidence
  4. DAdmissible only if Sameer consents in writing

Explanation

Section 60(a) permits secondary evidence when the original is with the person against whom it is to be proved and he does not produce it after notice. The Explanation to section 60 says that for clause (a) any secondary evidence of the contents is admissible. Section 58(v) includes an oral account by a person who has himself seen the document. Certified copies alone are required only for clauses (e) and (f).

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law relating to Evidence shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law relating to EvidenceFree diagnostic mock

More Law relating to Evidence questions