Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.


Calcutta High Court
Khadijah Khanum vs Abdool Kurreem Shemji on 20 December, 1889
Equivalent citations: (1890) ILR 17 Cal 344
Author: Wilson
Bench: Wilson


JUDGMENT

Wilson, J.

1. I am inclined to think that in Section 155 (3) of the Evidence Act the words, “which is liable to be contradicted, “mean” which is relevant to the issue.” That being so I think the safer course is to admit the evidence tendered so far as regards the Koran, for as to that book the plaintiff has given substantive evidence to shew that the writing in it is that of Aga Mirza. The witness now to be contradicted has said it is not, and if his evidence can be impeached by showing that he has formerly made a statement inconsistent with his present one, there remains some evidence for the plaintiff relative to the issue.

2. But as to the letter P.P., that stands on a different footing. On this point the plaintiff has given no evidence, but has relied on what might be brought out from the defendant’s witnesses, and they all say that the particular passage in question is not in Aga Mirza’s handwriting, and the witness to be contradicted says the same thing. If I am to allow him to be contradicted as proposed, this would be allowing the plaintiff, in reply, to give evidence which she might have given before she closed her case, or else it would be merely impeaching his credit, and this is immaterial, as even if he is impeached, there is no evidence on the plaintiff’s side. I think, therefore, that this evidence cannot be admitted.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.100 seconds.