Non-examination of a document’s author is not invariably fatal where other evidence supports its genuineness.

The plaintiff, a building contractor, sued the first defendant for the alleged unpaid balance on construction work, relying in part on a final-bill recapitulation sheet, Ex.P2, prepared by the second defendant, an engineer engaged by the first defendant.

The first defendant denied liability, disputed Ex.P2, and claimed she had paid more than the value of the work.

The Trial Court decreed the suit for ₹1,18,635.60 with interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit; the First Appellate Court dismissed the first defendant’s appeal and affirmed the decree.

Under Sections 17, 61 and 62 of the Evidence Act, the mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit does not, by itself, prove its contents or execution; proof must be assessed in light of the document, any admissions, and the evidence on record.

The Court considered Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, which states this evidentiary principle.

Under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, a First Appellate Court must determine the points arising, record its decision and give reasons; it must independently assess material facts and law.

However, failure to frame a separate point for every ground does not automatically invalidate its judgment if the material issues and evidence have been adequately considered.

Section 100 CPC limits second appeals to cases involving a substantial question of law.

The High Court held that Ex.P2 should not be rejected solely because its author was not examined.

The plaintiff testified to the document; the first defendant had appointed the second defendant as engineer and entrusted him with supervision; and, although she disputed the claimed amount in her reply notice, she did not then allege that Ex.P2 was fabricated in collusion.

The Court considered these circumstances alongside the evidence on record and found no legal error in the concurrent reliance on Ex.P2.

As to the appellate judgment, the Court accepted that a first appeal requires independent, reasoned consideration, but found that the First Appellate Court had examined the evidence and merits despite framing only a broad point on whether interference was warranted.

The absence of separate points corresponding to every appeal ground was therefore insufficient to set aside its judgment.

It confirmed the judgments and decree of the Courts below; the parties were directed to bear their own costs.