NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

High Court Upholds Importance of Photographic Evidence in Civil Disputes: Relevant for Adjudicating Rival Claims

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of photographic evidence in civil litigation, the High Court of Delhi, led by Hon’ble Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, has set a precedent in the careful examination and admittance of such evidence in legal disputes.

The judgment, dated November 20, 2023, revolved around a contentious civil suit where the petitioner, Vikas Mohan, sought to introduce three black and white photographs to establish the pre-existence of a structure, termed ‘kholki’, which was at the heart of the dispute. The decision to allow these photographs as evidence came after meticulous consideration of their relevance to the case.

Justice Arora, in her observation, highlighted the significance of these photographs, stating, “the said photographs would be relevant for adjudicating the rival claims of the parties; subject to the Petitioner proving the said photographs in accordance with law.” This statement not only allowed the submission of the photographs into evidence but also set a benchmark for the standard and relevance of photographic evidence in civil litigation.

The judgment further addressed the issue of the delay in submitting evidence, emphasizing that the trial court should consider the impact of this delay on the credibility of the evidence during evaluation. Despite the delay, the court found it imperative to include the photographs for a comprehensive understanding of the case.

The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the petitioner for the procedural delay, reflecting the court’s stance on ensuring adherence to procedural norms and timeliness in legal proceedings.

This decision has been perceived as a significant move in legal circles, as it reinforces the role of photographic evidence in unraveling the truth in legal disputes, especially in civil cases where the burden of proof plays a crucial role.

Date of Decision: 20 November 2023

VIKAS MOHAN  VS RAJINDER SINGH (DECEASED)

Latest Legal News