|
Kedarnath--Appellant. v ' the original is correct, but the question is v. whether secondary evidence thereof is ad G. B. Pradhan--Respondent. missible. The copy that has been put in Second Appeal No. 234 of 1934, Decided purports to be a true copy of the plan on 3rd July 1936. showing a road from such and such place Secondary Evidence--Admissibility--Docu to such and such place and it is certified ment tendered in evidence--No objection raised as to its secondary nature--Objection that this plan correctly defines the area «cannot be entertained in appeal. and boundaries of the land acquired under When a document is tendered in evidence and Notification No. 763, dated 31st January no objection whatever is taken to it either as to 1905. It has the initials " L. A. 0." at its being secondary evidence or as to its being ten the bottom. It does not appear to hate dered in circumstances that would justify its been signed or initialled by anybody being received as secondary evidence, it is too late except that it is signed at the bottom and in appeal to take the point that it should not have been received : A I R
|
[1915] PC 111
|
|
United Kingdom
|
circa 1933
|
|
|
 4
|
|
Air 1915 PC 1111
|
AIR 1915 PC 1111
|
Privy Council
|
India
|
circa 1915
|
|
|
2
|
|
14 Lah 4731
|
14 Lah 4731
|
|
Pakistan
|
circa 1933
|
|
|
2
|
