Lawzonline.com 
 
Home|Discussion Forum|Communities|Professional Search|Law Dictionary|Bare Acts|Law Schools|State Bare Acts|Free Judgement Search|Law quotes
Articles  |    Humor    |    Law Digest
 
 
Bare acts search

 
  
Bare acts > Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 > Order 7 Rule 17
 
  


 

17. Production of shop book.- (1) Save in so far as is otherwise provided by the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (18 of 1891), where the document on which the plaintiff sues is an entry in a shop book or other account in his possession or power, the plaintiff shall produce the book or account at the time of filing the plaint, together with a copy of the entry on which he relies.

(2) Original entry to be marked and returned—The court, or such officer as it appoints in this behalf, shall forthwith mark the document for the purpose of identification, and, after examining and comparing the copy with the original, shall, if it is found correct, certify it to be so and return the book to the plaintiff and cause the copy to be filed.

HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS

Allahabad.- Add the following proviso to sub-rule (2):

“Provided that, if the copy is not written in English or is written in a character other than the ordinary Persian or Nagri Character in use, the procedure laid down in Order XIII, Rule 12, as to verification shall be followed, and in that case the Court or its officer need not examine or compare the copy with the original.”

Bombay.- Add at the end of sub-rule (2):

“Provided that where the entry referred to in this rule is in a language other than English or the language of the Court, the plaintiff shall file with the plaint a true copy of the entry together with its translation either in English or in the language of the Court, such translation being verified as regards its correctness by an affidavit of the person making the translation:

Provided further that the Court may accept a plaint without the translation and permit the party to file the said translation within a time to be fixed by the Court.

In either of such cases the Court or its officer need not examine and compare the copy with the original and certify the same to be correct.’ (1.10.1983).

Delhi and Himachal Pradesh.- Same as that of Punjab.

Gujarat.- Same as that of first proviso of Bombay without the words “English or” and the words” either in English or” which are deleted, and addition of last sentence with words “In such a case” substituted for first five words.(17.8.1961).

Karnataka.- Add the following as sub-rule (3) to Rule 17:

“(3) Where the document is not in the language of the Court, the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court shall take the directions of the Judge or Presiding Officer of the Court as to whether the procedure prescribed in Rule 12 of Order XIII of this Code shall be followed.” (30.3.1967).

Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.- After sub-rule (2) add the following:

“Explanation - When a shop-book or other account written in a language other than English or the language of the Court is produced with a translation or transliteration of the relevant entry, the party producing it shall not be required to present a separate affidavit as to the correctness of the translation or transliteration, but shall add a certificate on the document itself, that it is a full and true translation or transliteration of the original entry, and no examination or comparison by the Ministerial Officer shall be required except by a special order of the Court.”

 

 

 

 

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

 

Quick Links     
      
Family LawsInsurance LawsEnvironmental lawTax LawFDI 
Company LawTelecommunication LawLabour LawsCentral RulesRBI 
Business & Commercial LawsConsumer lawsCorporate lawsCriminal lawsSEBI 
Intellectual Property lawMedia & Press lawsPharma & Medical lawsProperty lawFEMA 
Debt Recovery LawsAmendmentsProfessional lawBanking LawsLegal Links 
      
      
 
 
 
 
 

 
   
 

 

 

Privacy PolicyDisclaimer

Copyright @2010