The Legal Landscape: An Analysis of Bhima Tima Dhotre Vs.
Pioneer
Chemical Co.
Title: Bhima Tima Dhotre Vs. Pioneer Chemical Co
Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 23rd June, 1967
Coram: Justice Vimadala
Introduction:
The Bombay High Court heard the matter of Bhima Tima Dhotre vs. Pioneer
Chemical Co. on June 23, 1967. The admissibility of a post-card as evidence
was at the centre of the case. Mr. Poonawalla, the plaintiff's attorney, said that a
document must be brought into evidence after it has been proven. The
defendants' attorney, Mr. B. J. Kapadia, disagreed, citing the ruling in Madholal
Sindhu v. Asian Assu. Co. Ltd., which held that a document could not be
admitted into evidence if its contents were the evidence being sought to be
proven, unless the signatory or writer was called.
Facts:
The admissibility of a post-card as evidence was at the centre of the case. Mr.
Poonawalla, the plaintiff's attorney, said that a document must be brought into
evidence after it has been proven. The defendants' attorney, Mr. B. J. Kapadia,
disagreed, citing the ruling in Madholal Sindhu v. Asian Assu. Co. Ltd., which
held that a document could not be admitted into evidence if its contents were the
evidence being sought to be proven, unless the signatory or writer was called.
Talks concerning documented and oral evidence under the Indian Evidence Act
of 1872 frequently refer to this case.
Question:
Can any fact be proved with the help of oral evidence instead of documents or
electronic records?
Court’s decision and analysis:
It was held in Bhima Tima Dhotre vs The Pioneer Chemical Co. that
“Documentary evidence becomes meaningless if the writer has to be called in
every case to give oral evidence of its contents. If that were the position, it
would mean that, in the ultimate analysis, all evidence must be oral and that oral
evidence would virtually be the only kind of evidence recognised by law. This
provision would clearly indicate that to prove the contents of a document by
means of oral evidence would be a violation of that section.” Oral evidence can
be used to support any claim instead of written or digital records. It has been
observed that when the individual who submitted the documented record is
summoned to testify, the documentary evidence loses all of its weight and turns
into oral testimony, which is useless. If the owner of the document must always
appear and produce the document's contents, the value of documentary proof is
reduced. Accepting papers if oral evidence must take precedence would be
pointless. Documentary evidence also serves as the main form of proof in cases
where the document's owner has passed away or is not physically present. If the
write has to be called in every case to give oral evidence of its contents, then the
documentary evidence becomes meaningless. If that were the position it would
mean that the oral evidence would virtually be the only type of evidence
recognized by law. Hence in the ultimate analysis, all evidence must be oral.
This provision proves that the contents of document if proved by means of oral
evidence would be a violation of that section.
WRITTEN BY: AKSHAYA ZAVAR
