Evidentiary Status of Plaints in Indian Law

The Evidentiary Status of Plaints in Indian Law: An Analysis of Why a Plaint is Not a Public Document

Introduction

In the procedural framework of civil litigation in India, the plaint stands as the foundational document, articulating the plaintiff's cause of action and the relief sought. A crucial question that often arises in the course of trial pertains to its evidentiary status: specifically, whether a plaint qualifies as a "public document" under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The classification of a document as public or private carries significant implications for its admissibility and mode of proof. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the legal position in India, drawing upon statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements, to elucidate why a plaint is consistently regarded as a private document. The discussion will primarily revolve around the interpretation of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the consistent stance adopted by various High Courts across India.

Understanding Public and Private Documents under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter "Evidence Act") categorizes documents into two types: public documents and private documents. This distinction is pivotal because Section 76 of the Evidence Act allows for the issuance of certified copies of public documents, and Section 77 permits such certified copies to be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.

Section 74: Defining Public Documents

Section 74 of the Evidence Act defines public documents as follows:

"The following documents are public documents:—
(1) Documents forming the acts or records of the acts—
    (i) of the sovereign authority,
    (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and
    (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country;
(2) Public records kept in any State of private documents."

Section 75: Private Documents

Section 75 of the Evidence Act is concise, stating: "All other documents are private."

Therefore, any document that does not fall within the specific categories enumerated in Section 74 is, by default, a private document. The proof of private documents is governed by other provisions of the Evidence Act, typically requiring proof of execution and contents through primary evidence (the document itself produced for inspection, under Section 62) or, under specific circumstances, secondary evidence (as per Sections 63 and 65).

Judicial Interpretation: Why a Plaint is Not a Public Document

The judiciary in India has consistently held that a plaint, being a pleading filed by a private individual to initiate a lawsuit, does not fit the description of a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.

The Seminal View in Gulab Chand v. Sheo Karan Lall Seth

One of the most authoritative pronouncements on this subject comes from the Patna High Court in Gulab Chand v. Sheo Karan Lall Seth.[1] The court meticulously analyzed Section 74 and concluded that a plaint does not fall under its ambit. The court reasoned:

"I cannot see how a plaint filed by a private person in Court to Institute a case against some others can come within the descriptions of the documents given in that sub-section [Section 74(1)]. Sub-section (2) of Section 74 can in no way include a plaint. The plaint is neither an act nor the record of an act of any public officer. There can be no strength in the contention that when the plaint is presented and the Court makes an order admitting or registering it, the plaint becomes an act or the record of an act of a public officer presiding over the Court at the most, it will become a part of the record maintained by the Court in that case after the plaint is admitted and registered, but that itself will not make it a public document."

The Patna High Court in Gulab Chand further clarified that if plaints were considered public documents merely because they are filed in court, then "anything filed in a case in a court of law either petitions or pleadings, private communications or documents which a party would file in a case would become public documents for the simple reason that they are on the record of a case in Court."[1] This, the court implied, would be an overly broad interpretation of Section 74. The judgment distinguished plaints from judgments and decrees, which "are undoubtedly the acts of the Court, and they will be public documents on that account."[1] Similarly, a compromise petition incorporated into a decree becomes part of a public document, but prior to such incorporation, it remains a private document.[1] The court also referenced earlier decisions like Usuf Hasan v. Raunaq Ali (AIR 1943 Oudh 54) and Manbodh v. Hirasal (AIR 1926 Nag 339), which held that a plaint is a private document requiring proof by direct evidence.[1]

Reinforcement by Other High Courts

The reasoning in Gulab Chand has been widely accepted and reiterated by several other High Courts in India.

The Kerala High Court, in Raman Pillai Krishna Pillai And Others v. Kumaran Parameswaran And Others,[2] explicitly quoted and endorsed the observations from Gulab Chand, affirming that a plaint filed by a private person does not become a public document even after being admitted and registered by the court.

The Bombay High Court in Shamlata v. Vishweshwara Tukaram Giripunje[3] held that a certified copy of a plaint is not a public document and therefore requires proof. The court observed, "For proving such document, the original plaint should have been called in the Court. That is not done, hence the certified copy of the plaint could not be said to be proved at all."[3] This view was reiterated by the Bombay High Court in REGISTRAR OF THE DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR MARATHWADA UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS v. JAIRAM TATYARAO LOKHANDE AND ANOTHER,[4] citing Shamlata (referred to as Shamlata Manohar Raut and Others V/s Vishweshwara Tukaram Giripunje and Another AIR 2008 Bombay 155 in the judgment), and also in Dhirajlal Raishi Chheda v. Raishi Shivji Chheda.[5]

The Orissa High Court in Smt. Baijayanti Nanda v. Jagannath Mahaprabhu Marfat Adhikari Mahanta Bansidhar Das Goswami And Others[6] also relied on Gulab Chand to conclude that a plaint is not a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act and therefore cannot be admitted into evidence and marked as an exhibit without proving its contents. The court emphasized that evidence should be confined to pleadings and that a plaint from another suit, to which the plaintiff was not a party, could not be admitted merely as a certified copy to prove the defendant's case without proper proof of its contents.[6]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in LALIT KUMAR v. BHAGAT RAM[7] and RANJU RAM v. TULSI RAM[8] extensively reviewed the legal position, citing Gulab Chand, Usuf Hasan, Manbodh, and the Bombay High Court's view in the Shamlata case (referred to as Manohar (deceased) through LRs. VS VishweshwarTukaramGiripunje). These judgments underscore that a plaint is a private document and must be proved accordingly. The court in RANJU RAM noted, "plaint may be admissible in proof of fact that a particular suit was brought by a particular person against someone on a particular allegation; but it cannot be admissible to prove the correctness of a statement contained therein unless it is proved by direct evidence or by secondary evidence as provided in the Evidence Act."[8]

Distinction from Other Court Records

As highlighted in Gulab Chand,[1] the critical distinction lies in the nature of the document. A plaint represents the assertions of a private party. While it becomes part of the court's record, it is not an "act or record of an act" of the court or a public officer in the same way a judgment, decree, or an order is. The latter documents are products of judicial or official action, reflecting the decisions or formal proceedings of the tribunal or officer. A plaint, conversely, is a submission *to* the court by a litigant.

The Gauhati High Court in Fazal Sheikh Others v. Abdur Rahman Mea Others,[9] while dealing with the admissibility of a certified copy of a Wakf deed, referred to Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Though the primary issue was different, the case implicitly supports the idea that for a document to be public, it must meet the criteria of Section 74. A Wakf deed, if its record is kept by a public office as per law (e.g., registration office), might have its certified copy from such public record admissible under Section 74(2) as a "public record kept of a private document." This is distinct from a plaint, which is not typically a private document whose record is maintained in a public office in the sense of Section 74(2), but rather a pleading forming part of a specific case file.

Implications of a Plaint Being a Private Document

The classification of a plaint as a private document has several significant legal consequences:

Mode of Proof

Being a private document, a plaint must be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act applicable to private documents. Generally, this means:

  • Primary Evidence: The original plaint itself should be produced (Section 62, Evidence Act).
  • Secondary Evidence: If the original cannot be produced, secondary evidence (such as a certified copy, though its mere production is not enough to prove contents) may be admissible under the conditions laid down in Section 65 of the Evidence Act. However, even if a certified copy is admitted as secondary evidence of the *existence* of the plaint, the *truth of the contents* of the plaint still needs to be established by other evidence. As the Bombay High Court noted in Shamlata, the original plaint should ideally be called for.[3]

The mere filing of a certified copy of a plaint does not automatically prove the truth of the averments made therein. The statements in the plaint are, at best, admissions by the party who filed it and can be used against them, but they do not constitute proof of the facts alleged, especially against third parties.

Admissibility for Limited Purposes

As observed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in RANJU RAM v. TULSI RAM,[8] a plaint (or its certified copy, if properly admitted as secondary evidence of the original) may be admissible to prove certain limited facts, such as:

  • That a particular suit was filed.
  • The names of the parties to that suit.
  • The nature of the claim or allegations made by the plaintiff in that suit.
  • The date of institution of the suit.

However, its admissibility for these purposes does not extend to proving the correctness or truthfulness of the statements or allegations contained within the plaint. Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee's observation, cited in Gulab Chand[1] and LALIT KUMAR,[7] regarding the "distinction between the admissibility of a document as evidence of a transaction and the admissibility of a document in proof of a statement contained therein" is particularly pertinent here.

Evidentiary Value of Contents

The contents of a plaint are the self-serving statements of the plaintiff. While they can be used as admissions against the plaintiff under Sections 17-21 of the Evidence Act, they cannot be treated as substantive evidence of the truth of the facts asserted therein in favour of the plaintiff or against the defendant or third parties, without independent proof. The Supreme Court in Sudha Devi (Smt) v. M.P Narayanan And Others,[10] although dealing with an ex-parte decree, emphasized the need for reliable and relevant evidence, implying that mere assertions (as in a plaint) are insufficient without credible proof.

Conclusion

The consistent position of law in India, as established through a series of judicial pronouncements primarily rooted in the reasoning of Gulab Chand v. Sheo Karan Lall Seth,[1] is that a plaint is not a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is a private document representing the pleadings of a party. Consequently, its mere filing in court or the existence of a certified copy does not make its contents automatically admissible as proof of the facts stated. The plaint must be proved in the manner prescribed for private documents, and while it can serve as evidence of the fact of litigation and the claims made, the veracity of its contents must be established independently through cogent and reliable evidence. This distinction is fundamental to maintaining the integrity of evidentiary standards in civil adjudication in India.

References