Yes, welcome everybody to this new seminar series called Tackling Global Health Challenges. My name's Sassi Mollinu, I'm a social scientist and I'm based in the Health Systems Collaborative Group here in Oxford and I'm going to be chairing this series and I'm co-chairing it together with Professor Mike English who's a clinical researcher and an implementation health systems researcher also based in the same group. So we're really delighted over the next four sessions, different seminars and to be bringing together speakers from different major research programs. So we're bringing together speakers from the Oxid Centre for Global Health Research and speakers from three different Africa and Asia programs. So these are all large programs being run out of Thailand in the case of Moru, Vietnam in the case of Ocru and Kenya in the case of the Can We Welcome Trust program. So really delighted to have speakers from these different contexts and working in these different programs that are linked. So just a bit more background and introduction to the series. So I'm sure everybody here is aware that global health problems are very complex problems and it's important to have effective research collaborations both across different sectors but also different disciplines in order to tackle these complex problems. And effective and creative collaborations as a starting point really needs different disciplines to be aware of what each other can bring to tackling the problems. So exposure to different fields and disciplines and what we hope to do over this series is to hear about different methods and approaches that fall under the umbrella of health policy and systems research and to see how they're being brought into thinking about and researching different global health challenges. So a little bit more about what health policy and systems research is. There's a commonly used definition on the left hand side of the screen there but there are quite a few different definitions and the important thing to take away about the field is that it's characterized largely by the types of methods not by the types of methods that it employs but rather by the types of questions that it seeks to answer. And so in health policy and systems research as the name suggests is trying to understand about health systems different elements of health health systems how they interact with each other how they function and importantly how health systems might be strengthened. So it's an applied field very pragmatic in its orientation and this means and it takes seriously at the heart of the field the importance of understanding problems and issues in context. So a big strength of the field is that it brings together different disciplines different types of knowledge paradigms and research designs and methods. Situating health policy and systems research in other health research traditions what we can see in this visual is that it operates across the individual level and the societal level and that it draws heavily on and incorporates social sciences into the field. And incorporated within the overall umbrella of health policy and systems research are all these different more specific types of research listed on the left of the slide and in there is implementation science implementation research that I'll come back to. So what we are planning to do over this seminar series is to have an opportunity to talk about a series of different challenges tackling AMR is today so I'll give an overview first of interdisciplinary research and introduction to that and then I'll hand over to Ben Cooper who's going to chair our today's session on tackling AMR and then over the next couple of months we're going to have at the same time on a Thursday a series of different topics. So one on introducing new technologies one on ensuring medicine quality and another on strengthening patient experience and outcomes. So these topics obviously overlap with each other and we hope that the issues the experience sharing and so on will be very much cross cutting across these different sessions. So before I hand over to Ben to run the AMR session today we thought it would be useful perhaps to give an introduction to interdisciplinary research what is it and what are the kinds of opportunities and challenges that we face in conducting interdisciplinary research. And in the next couple of slides I'm going to draw quite heavily on this paper by Yan Ding and colleagues which was published last year in BMJ Global Health. So drawing on other people's papers and thinking Yan Ding and colleagues talk about the overarching term or set of approaches called cross-disciplinary research and this brings together three different typologies of working across different disciplines and moving across the slide from the left to the right what we're seeing there is disciplines being integrated more completely so increasing integration across different disciplines. So in the multi-disciplinary research on the left hand side different disciplines or fruits are brought together to add breadth knowledge and different types of methods to a particular problem. But there is not in this typology a cognitive effort or a deliberate attempt to integrate the different forms of knowledge and expertise so the different fruits into more of a fruit salad. So in this middle into disciplinary research there is much more of a cognitive effort to bring the learning across disciplines together but the integrity of each discipline and its bases is maintained in interdisciplinary research. With transdisciplinary research there's a deliberate effort to transcend the different disciplines to create something new a new blend with the fruits and the hope with this is that it brings extra creativity new fields of inquiry new questions that wouldn't emerge from only having emerging of the disciplines in the way it does in the other typologies. So this is a rather simplified way of distinguishing these different types of cross-disciplinary research and in practice there's lots of blurring between them and there's movement even in one project from one type of cross-disciplinary research to another. But it might be helpful for us in this seminar series to be looking for what kind of methods are we seeing what's their disciplinary base and what are the opportunities for and what are we already seeing in terms of the way those disciplines are being integrated. So cross-disciplinary research is an umbrella term covering the three type typologies where there's different two at least disciplines brought together and combined sometimes integrated and different concepts methods and theories are brought together and this can be done in teams across collaborations and networks or by an individual. So the value of cross-disciplinary research is that in tackling complex challenges like global health challenges bringing different disciplines can lead to a more comprehensive understanding, greater innovation and also there can be in cross-disciplinary research a good and strengthened ability to be able to translate that knowledge into practice so to have an influence on policy and practice in ways that address societal challenges including health. So an opportunity but also a challenge in working in a cross-disciplinary team is that often we're working across quite different overarching paradigms or ways of understanding the world of understanding what counts as knowledge and I'm in this screen here I've brought together the two dominant different types of paradigms that are that feature in many disciplines and I've put them on a spectrum to show the extremes to make the point but on the left hand side we have one of the dominant paradigms which is a positivist paradigm and here the understanding of the world is that in an extreme putting it in an extreme way is that there's a single reality that exists out there that's independent of human experience and in this paradigm there's an assumption that there can that reality can be understood with the right methods and that the right methods tend to be experimental quantitative and deductive in the way that they work and with a researcher in this paradigm they should largely be absent from that reality so they should be able to examine it in an unbiased way or at least be controlled for. That's very different from an interpretivist paradigm or way of understanding the world in this paradigm the reality itself is understood to be very complex very multi-layered there are multiple realities and that these are constructed and shift over time and place through people's different experiences and interactions so a single phenomenon might be interpreted very differently by different people or even the same person might interpret a phenomenon differently when they move between new contexts so here the knowledge is about trying to understand this complexity and these multiple realities and qualitative inductive approaches are seen to be much more appropriate for that and the researcher is not trying to be controlled for or unbiased but the researcher is really key in constructing the knowledge and their different values perspectives and influences that they bring to that knowledge it's really important in qualitative interpretivist paradigms to be open about that and recognize it so just to give an illustration of how that works for instance in TB a more positivist paradigm and approach would be to say that TB is caused by TB Bacillus and people either know or they don't know the cause of TB and that's a understandable and a perspective to have on the other end of this perspective is that TB is interpreted and experienced very differently by different people in different places depending on their social locations and also the context in which they're operating so there are different questions that might be tackled that have different underlying epistemological assumptions across this spectrum so even just looking at that example what we can see is that there's a big opportunity of working between and across different disciplines but it can also be challenging and come back to some of those challenges so in terms of thinking about the scope of cross-disciplinary research one way is to think about what are the different disciplines the different paradigms that are being brought together but also another set of dimensions to think about are also illustrated in this slide so organizational scope and they might be working more within an organization or across sectors it could be in geographical scale and it could also be in analytical scope so the foci of the project or piece of research so I find this visual together we're thinking about the different disciplines helpful in terms of thinking about with our different cross-disciplinary research where do we sit along these dimensions and it also helps to show how complex and cross disciplinary research can be so moving more specifically to implementation research I mentioned that this is one form of research in the field of health policy and systems research and it's often multi-disciplinary cross-disciplinary in fact implementation research actually builds on different research traditions across that spectrum of paradigms that I introduced and so for that reason there can be really considerable debate over its scope the different theories involved methods and areas of emphases but a really broad definition is highlighted on this slide and was in the paper by Theobald et al in the Lancet so this is the scientific inquiry into questions concerning implementation so carrying an attention into effect and in health research it could be policies programs or individual practices a more specific definition is again emphasizing the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of a whole range of different types of interventions that have already been proven but to systematically uptake them into routine practice in order to improve health and in this context it could include a range of different types of influences on patient healthcare professionals and looking at organizational behavior it could be in a range of different healthcare facilities healthcare provision settings or in communities what's really important is that the outcome of interest is the measure of delivery as opposed to the health status of the subjects so both of those definitions and all definitions emphasize scientific methods and rigor and one way to do that is to use different theories and frameworks either to test apply or to build them depending on which spectrum across the different paradigms one might be working from so this is just one example of a well-known framework for implementation research and it requests or it includes thinking about five different dimensions that should be considered in looking at an intervention and how it fits and shifts in context and so the intervention characteristics of which there are many different elements on the right hand side of the drawing at the bottom the characteristics of individuals involved in the intervention and its implementation in context those who are affected by it as well as the inner settings so closer context in which interventions are operating and the broader more wider context the sociopolitical context the influences that more inner setting or inner context as well as the processes of the intervention and how it functions and shifts over time and all of these different dimensions are constantly shifting and interacting with each other so for example individuals have agency and they will act in ways that are not necessarily as intended by interventions in ways that are very much shaped by the inner and outer contexts so in terms of defining characteristics for implementation research in that paper that I mentioned earlier in the Lancet there are a whole series of defining characteristics that are down the left hand side of the slide there just to highlight a few that I haven't mentioned yet. Implementation research should be demand driven and involve multiple stakeholders as well as multi be multidisciplinary and so in being demand driven it should be being tailored to those who are going to be using and needing the information that's being developed through the research or that's being constructed through the research and so then stakeholders who might be involved might well be policymakers, health managers, potential beneficiaries within health systems or within communities. Implementation research should also be real world and real time so it shouldn't be dealing with imagined ideal world situations but more like the often messy realities and very complex realities of the real world and findings are often needed in real time in order to make a difference because of the pragmatic orientation of the field. So those are some of the defining characteristics and some of the challenges and trade-offs that the field has are in terms of rigor and adherence to the methodological requirements of different disciplines that are being brought together often quite time consuming so balancing this need for rigor against the need to be timely in producing findings and making sure that they're usable and often the people who want the findings from implementation research want it much faster than researchers can produce it. A second trade-off or challenge is about whether the implementation research should be embedded within the system or the organization that's being studied and adapted and learning while the implementation is going on or whether it should be more external and objective and able to view and learn from outside. Another trade-off is between being very context specific so that the research is really useful in the particular context really understanding it in depth and detail and against wider learning and being able to have more generalizable transferable findings and this is where the theories and the frameworks can be so important and useful in terms of that wider learning. Another trade-off is between and it's similar to the others whether the interest is to study and maintain fidelity of a particular intervention over time so fidelity being the intervention remaining as it was initially designed and intended versus the adaptation and learning over the course of implementation and some of these trade-offs and where people sit within these trade-offs might depend on where they fit on that spectrum that I introduced earlier of the different paradigms and the combinations of those different paradigms and how they're brought together. So the really key message about implementation research is that really to do implementation research one does have to embrace complexity and it's far more than being able to do it with a few interviews. There's a need for rigor, there's a need to incorporate theory and frameworks and to build these and strengthen them and there's also need for engagement with multiple different players with researchers, with health managers, policymakers, participants and across different disciplines. For implementation research and for cross-disciplinary research more generally there can be a lot of challenges working across those different paradigms can bring quite big differences and the challenge of coming together and having shared understandings and outputs can be quite big. There can be competition across a research project or program between the different disciplines in terms of where are the resources split, how are they split, how fair is it, what are the workloads, who gets credit for the outputs and the different paradigms can mean that there are quite different understandings of what counts as knowledge, what is a measurement, one of the sort of standards around measurements, quantitative, qualitative, some of the framing of concepts for instance validity, often in a more interpretive framework might be thought of more as transferability and trustworthiness where theory and practice fits in the disciplinary backgrounds can also be quite different and lead to some debates and challenges of bringing these different perspectives together. So the overall message is that cross-disciplinary research across all of these different sort of resources and so on is it can be extremely valuable in knowledge and in translation but it's also hard and this paper that I introduced by Yanding and colleagues is valuable in bringing together different practical actions ideas for this from the literature for fostering cross-disciplinary research and they give a whole load of different ideas for academic institutes, research team leaders, research funders and individuals so if anybody's interested in this I think that's a really good paper to read and the team have also published a whole series of shorter learning briefs or materials that are available online so we can we can share how to access those resources if anybody's keen to see those. There are also many resources online for implementation research more specifically so there are practical guides available, research toolkits, there's online training courses so lots of opportunities to learn about and get more engaged in this more implementation and cross-disciplinary work. So that's an introduction to interdisciplinary research and what we're really hoping for this seminar series is that we'll have an opportunity to be exposed to different methods and approaches from health policy and systems research which I've mentioned is itself multidisciplinary and to be able to see how these different methods and approaches are drawn into examining different global health challenges. Those challenges and the approaches are very much overlapping but we also just hope it's an opportunity for us all to make new connections and learn about what's happening in different parts of the world and we really value hearing from all of you on this call about your own examples, resources, insights that we should we should be accessing and learning about.


So first, I can say that is a candidate mission by everyone that his sessions are so lucidly explained that one can always understand better. And secondly, in the lighter way and they can, there can be no denial of the fact that his knowledge is to the highest level, which can only be appreciated, and one can be always kept in awesome. That tone has no significance with the topic as such. But yes, it can be clearly said that his way of taking things forward is always fascinating and encouraging for every professional and a student to understand those aspects. Admissions and trials with more specific reference to the civil suits is the today's topic. But before we take things forward, I will just tell that those who are connecting for the first time that Mr. S.R. Soma Shaker has taken few sessions with us and all his sessions have been doing well. And in fact, the number one session on popularity is by him. So those who want to connect with the previous webinars of Mr. Soma Shaker can always connect with the Beyond Law CLC platform and watch that. And secondly, all those other sessions which we have done more than five and can also be watched and shared amongst your friends if you want. And since it's a Sunday evening, without making you more lazy, we will go with innings just like what we saw of Dinesh Kartik day before yesterday. And the same way, there will be flurry of knowledge sharing and flurry of shots which are full of knowledge and judgments. Audio, sir. Thank you, sir. Good evening, friends. The subject is admissions and denials with special emphasis on civil trials. Are you able to hear me? Are you able to hear me? Yes, I have proposed to divide the subject into three parts. You see that. I have proposed to divide subject into three parts. Admissions and denials as far as readings are concerned. Then during the course of trial that is evidence. And then I will take to the relevant provisions of the commercial board stand at the end. Where it contemplates a specific type, a special and specific type of denial there. Three parts. My notes indicates that on 2010-2021, about eight months back, I had spoken on this platform on pleadings. For a few, it may be a repetition with us on the on that day when I spoke about pleadings. I had referred to the provisions for eight CPC, which means with the denials. The subject is said that some repetition is unavoidable. I will do that also. Now, straight away, let me go to the provisions of order eight CPC. Which speak of denials. I will come to that part of order eight, which has been amended by the commercial courts at the end. We'll take up CPC as it is. Kindly go to order eight rule three CPC denial to be specific. It shall not be sufficient for a defendant is written statement. To deny generally the grounds illegal by the plaintiff. But the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages. Many times we say that our mention paras one to six of the client are false. That is no denial in the eye of law. Or at least haven't got the language of rule three of order eight CPC. That cannot be said to be a specific denial. In the case of the plaintiff is that he's a member of the joint family consisting of himself and the defendant. And the suit properties are joint family properties. It is not just sufficient to say that the government in para so-and-so. Are the plane that the suit properties are joint family properties and the plaintiff is a joint family member. Or it is not sufficient. Why it is not so what according to you. There must be a specific denial of each. Rule four evasive denial where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plane. He must not do so evasively but answer the point of substance. Does if it is a leached. That if in fact it should have been illustration but in the main part of the section itself it is stated. That he received a certain sum of money. It shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount. But this demand but he must be right that he received that some are any partner or else set out how much he received. And if an allegation is made with the diverse circumstances it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances. Defendant being the owner of the suit schedule property entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff and executed an agreement of sale. Agreeing to sell the property for a consideration of 25 lakhs and received a sum of 10 lakhs as advance. And further agreed to execute the sale deal within six months from the date of the agreement by which time the plaintiff should bury balance a consideration. If you simply make a denial. Are you denying the ownership of the defendant? Are you denying the agreement of sale? Are you denying the amount of consideration agreed? Are you denying the amount of advance amount received? These things will have to be very specifically denied. Rule 5 specific denial. Every allegation of fact in the client if not denied specifically or by necessary implication are stated to be not admitted in the reading of the defendant shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability. That is the defendant is a minor or a person of one's own mind. In other cases, if there is no specific denial or a denial by necessary implication, it means that the defendant has admitted that part of the agreement made in the plaintiff provided that the court may in its decision require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise thereby such admission. I will have an occasion to get back to this proviso to sub rule 1 of rule 5. Sometime later during this presentation with us. There is a similar proviso attached to section 58 of the evidence act. And what I tell you about section 58 would equally apply to this. Therefore, I don't right now take up what this proviso means when it can be applied by the court. Where the defendant has not filed a reading, it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment and the basis of the facts contained in the client, except as it's the person under the disability. But the court may its decision require any such fact to be proved. The similar proviso under all rate rule 10. And the legal position is desperate defendant not filing his written statement. He has a right to cross examine the plaintiff and the court must be satisfied about the plaintiff's life. It cannot just automatically delete the suit going by the literal language of all rate rule 10. It must write a statement. It must be convinced that the plaintiff has established the client. That is the law of the land. In exercising discretion under the proviso to sub rule 1 or under sub rule 2, the court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant would have or has engaged a pleader. Supposedly the defendant had no opportunity to engage a pleader or did not engage it and has just admitted every government made a complaint. The court will have to be extremely careful and may have to call upon the plaintiff to prove his case independent of such a consent stand taken by the defendant. Sub rule 4 is not necessary for this session. The title then the title to marginal note to each of these rules is very interesting. Rule 3 denial to be specific. Rule 4 evasive denial. Rule 5 specific denial. I really wonder as to why there should have been three separate rules for this. Probably the legislature also wanted to be very specific in the matter of the specific and evasive denial. And therefore it shows to me three separate rules. Ultimately the substance of all of the peace that there must be a specific denial upon our mind. Here liars will have to be extremely careful. Experience has shown I will give two or three examples that will be easy for you to understand. Many of you have already heard me a number of occasions. You may think that I always give an example from a suit for specific performance and suit for a partition. The reason is there are few suits which come before the trial course. Of course, suits for declaration is also there, but particularly in suits for specific performance and partition. These denials and admissions. They are very important. Often times we see that in the second or third paragraph written statement. There is a denial of the case of the plaintiff that the defendant entered into an agreement. The defendant would have also stated it is specifically denied. Then he would say that the plaintiff is put to sleep to do the same. A jet who frames issues. If it does not go through the remaining part of written statement. Or a lawyer appearing for the plaintiff does not go through the written statement carefully and fully. She would be under the impression that he is required to prove the execution of the agreement of sale by the defendant. If you go through the written statement carefully and fully, you will find that somewhere in the penultimate paragraph or a little earlier. The defendant would have admitted the agreement of sale. The place that the defendant was in financially fine circumstances. He approached the plaintiff. Was known to be a professional money lender or otherwise a person who would lend money or for interest. He insisted on an argument in the nature of an agreement of sale as a security for the load. Defendant being hard pressed for money. Enter executed such an agreement of sale. Neither the defendant had an intention to sell the suit property. Nor the plaintiff had an intention to buy the property. This is not an agreement. The transaction is not an agreement of sale. Though the document reads like an agreement of sale. Is it a case that the plaintiff is required to prove the execution of the document? Defendant takes the burden of proving that the document came into being in the circumstances treated by him in the written statement. In fact, a question often would arise. With such a plea, he is barred by the provisions of section 92 of the Evidence Act. I know I am slightly deviating, but it is worth deviating. As most of you may be now knowing, under section 91 of the Evidence Act, if a transaction requires to be in writing, or the parties choose to put the transaction in writing, then writing alone is the evidence, no oral evidence can be given. And that writing has to be proved. Then once that writing is proved in a manner provided by section 91, 92 prohibits the parties from letting in oral evidence to contradict the terms of that document, to vary the document, to modify the document and other things. The Honorable Supreme Court in a good number of positions has said that if the case of the party is that though the document is filed as a sale deed or whatever it is, the intended transaction is altogether different, 92 would not be a part. In the number of positions of the Supreme Court, the Outsided 1 is reported in AER 98, 82 SC 20. AER 98, 82 SC 20. This is not an occasion to go deep into the provisions of 91 and 92. It's only for information. If the defendant takes up such a plea, that plea is not barred by the provisions of section 92 of the Evidence Act. What I'm telling you is this, this is not a case of specific denial of the execution of the agreement of sale. Read the written statement carefully. Then Thonesel appearing for the plaintiffs would decide as to what he is required to prove. Here, there is something more to tell. The plaintiffs issues a legal notice to the defendant. The defendant of defendants proposing a partition or claiming a share in the partition, asking them to come forward to effect a partition, failing which would initiate either action. Or he may say that he is the owner of the property by some means. His title is denied. Possession is interfered with. Then in reply to that notice, the defendant sets up a will executed by a person who may be related to the plaintiff or not related to the plaintiff. What happens is, in the plane, the plaintiff would have mentioned the defendant in his reply as an effect to a will, which is concocted, forged. The testator was not in a sound disposing state of mind at all to execute such a will. Here the problem lies. Many think that it is an admission on the part of the plaintiff about the will. The legal position is very clear. He who propounds the will will have to establish it. This cannot be done as an admission on the part of the plaintiff about the execution of the will. And even otherwise, in your provisional section 68 of the evidence that despite admission, the defendant who propounds the will will have to prove it by examining at least one protesting witness. In fact, I have told the judicial officers also in the judicial academy. That no issue need to be framed, cast in the burden on the plaintiff to prove that the will is forged, concocted, the testator was not in a sound disposing state of mind. That is a burden that cannot be placed on the plaintiff. It is for the defendant to do this. Therefore, what is admitted and denied extremely takes, I mean is a very important thing which a lawyer should keep in mind. Here again a slight deviation, not totally relevant to the subject. I refer to section 68 of the evidence that which requires the propounder of a will to examine one at least one attesting witness. To prove the execution of the will. The section 68 is not confined to will. It says any document which requires attestation, if its institution is denied, it can be proved by examining at least one attestive witness. Maybe when I spoke on this platform about suits for declaration of title and other connected aspects, I have given this example, it's worth repeating. Let us take a case where the plaintiff claims title on the basis of a gift deed, executed by one ex who is not a party to the suit. The defendant denies the execution of the gift deed. That yet centers the witness parts and supports the plaintiff saying that he or she has executed the gift deed in pair with the plaintiff. Section 68 provides who says the execution of such a document if specifically denied by the person purporting to have executed, then only requires the other side to examine the attesting witness. This is not a case where the execute tank has denied the execution of the document. The defendant has denied it. Examination of the attesting witness would not be necessary. Alright, we will reserve it for some other occasion. Let us not, let us get back to this. Now, practitioner should know one thing. There has been a practice in some places after the written statement is filed. The plaintiff files what is known as a reply statement rejoinder replication by whatever name you call it, or late role line provides for it. It is not mandatory to file it. Even if the defendant pleads certain facts, takes up a specific stand, plaintiff is not required to meet them or deny them by filing a reply statement or replication or rejoinder. There is no need. It cannot be intended that the plaintiff in answer to the written statement has not filed a reply statement. Take another case where the plaintiff files a suit for partition, defendant sets up a will. Plaintiff does not file a reply statement. It cannot be said that the plaintiff has admitted the case of the defendant in so far as will is concerned. Or the defendants believe that certain properties of their self acquisitions. Plaintiff does not file a reply statement. It cannot be said that the plaintiff has admitted that the properties referred to in the written statement are the self acquisitions of the defendant. A long back we had a decision of the Tarnataka High Court, but now the Supreme Court has said so. In 2009, 1 SCC 354. A Lachmanan vs. Thetaille Padmini. A Lachmanan vs. Thetaille Padmini. Non-filing of a replication does not mean that there is an admission of the facts pleaded in the written statement. Yet there is a thing which the advocates appearing for the defendants while drafting written statement should bear in mind these. Either you should admit it or deny it or which part of which sentence of the plaint you are going to admit which you are going to deny. There must be a specific denial of it. Supposing you say that the government in a particular part of the plaint is not within your knowledge. Despite saying that the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same, Supreme Court has said that it does not amount even to an implied denial. Let me repeat a clean written statement that the defendant is not aware of a particular government made in the plaint does not amount even to an implied denial. We have an earlier decision of the Supreme Court which has been subsequently followed. The earlier decision is AER 1967 Supreme Court 109. AER 1967 Supreme Court 109. Jaffoor Issa J.A.F.A.U. R.A.S.A.H. J.A.F.A.U. R.A. Jaffoor Issa vs Dwarka Prasad This decision has been subsequently followed in Muddasani Venkatana R.S.A.Y.A. Muddasani Venkatana R.S.A.Y.A vs Muddasani Sarojana 2016-12 SCC 288 I may tell you incidentally that many times we learn from the opponent counsel also. Ultimately we may win the matter but there are certain things which we learn from the opponent counsel. As a junior lawyer practicing in my native place, I filed an election petition challenging the election of the president for APMC, agricultural produce, marketing, cooperating. I think maybe I appear for the respondent or something of that kind. I had simply said that these facts are not between the knowledge of the respondent. A senior lawyer said there is no denial at all. I said that I have denied. He said a plea of want of knowledge does not amount to denial at all. Of course subsequently I also investigated this. So many times we learn from the opponent counsel also. Then we have this another plea. It happens, he suits for money. Defendant denies the transaction. Execution of the pro note, loan agreement, high-partication agreement or whatever it is. Then says without prejudice to what is stated above. That is not the interest agreed to be paid by the defendant. Plaintiff to his signature to some banned documents. Without prejudice. And then he says defendant is in fine circumstances. Some installments to be directed. What is this without prejudice? Very recently, the Karnataka High Court had a notation to examine this. We have a very beautiful judgment. Very lovely to be Karnataka High Court. In 2021 SCC online, Karnataka 12184. I repeat 2021 SCC online, Karnataka 12184. RFA, regular PSTP number RFA 2047 of 2010 dated 65201 dated 65201. This judgment intermits a reference to number of judgments of the English courts. And one of the Supreme Court reported in 2085 SCC 19, 2085 SCC 99. I will give the party's name as per the Supreme Court decision extension. ITC limited versus blue post hotels limited. ITC limited versus blue post hotels limited. The decision of the Karnataka High Court, as I said this is the prediction that I hope for recovery of money. The trial court had dismissed its suit. 25th, the first appeal before the High Court. Then with regard to denial also, the Leonard Jett has referred to number of judgments of the Supreme Court sale. When it amounts to denial and all that absence of pleadings, variance between pleading and proof. Then this is how the Leonard Jett begins. I am tempted to read some two or three parrots in the judgment that would give you a better insight into this. Because the court has specifically considered this question. Next question that requires to be considered is the effect of parrots, another written statement which is hedged by without prejudice. And therefore can the defendant rule out of certain statements made without a mode of payment to the plaintiff clived by him. He pleads discharge, then he says without prejudice. Authorities of the subject clearly say no. He is bound by this statement. Then see how beautifully it is put. Without prejudice rule offers him no asylum. Without prejudice rule offers him that pronoun him refers to the defendant offers him no asylum. Without prejudice rule is a role of 40 lineage. Eminent law laws have pronounced on this wet set rule, often with a tone of exasperation. I check with the dictionary the meaning of the word exasperation is anger and annoyance. But if there was unanimity on any one aspect among them, it is this that the rule is based on sound public policy. And the solitary object underlying this rule is to enter it and facilitate parties to seek negotiated settlement of disputes. Without request to court and unless some protection is given to the parties for stating their mutual position. They will be inhibited from placing their thoughts on the table, less what they have disclosed during negotiation might be used against them as evidence. That is why in the mediation rules it is specifically stated. If something is disclosed during the mediation proceedings that cannot be taken as a ground in the court. No, there is that admission during mediation proceedings. The guiding principle is that parties should be entered so far as possible to resolve their dispute without resultant litigation. It can therefore be taken as fairly well settled that without prejudice rule is a part of public policy. And the same is sanctified almost a rule of law to enter into negotiated settlements of legal disputes. And therefore please mark these words and therefore its applicability is limited to the stage before the parties not at the doors of the court. What is it that we are doing after the parties not the doors of the court we say without prejudice. Even during the negotiation stage before the litigation commences, the judicial opinions have been divergent on the extent of applicability of this rule. English authorities will refer. Then it may be added that the decision of the House of Lords in Bradford and Bingley case has been approvingly quoted by honorable Supreme Court. That is the one ITC limited versus two post hotels limited. 2018 by the CC 99. The letter did the power icon. Excats the judgment of the Supreme Court worth reading much was sought. This is the review of the Supreme Court. Much was sought to be made by the world's without prejudice in the letter containing the undertaking that if the debt was not paid, the creditor could take over the secured assets. The submission on behalf of the debtor that the letter of undertaking was given in the course of negotiations and cannot be held to be an evidence of the acknowledgement of liability of the debtor. Apart from being untenable in law reiterates the attempt to evade liability and must be rejected. The submission that the letter was written without prejudice to the legal rights and remedies available under any law and therefore the acknowledgement that the undertaking has no legal effect must likewise be rejected. This letter is reminiscent of a letter that fell for consideration in Spencer's case as pointed out by Mr. Harish Salved and other people. Therefore, you will have to be very careful in taking a plea that without prejudice to what is stated above the defendant wants to say particularly this happens in the money shoes. Partition suits and other suits also this happens. You'll have to be extremely carefully. Now, this is with regard to the provisions of order eight through three to five CPC and the case law on the point. Therefore, we shall go to the provisions of the evidence act and refer to admissions and denials, what particularly admissions. I suffice to say, as far as the first part of this presentation is concerned, that the denial must be very specific. It cannot be evasive. It should be strictly in terms of order eight through three five. Don't take the risk of saying without prejudice. Some of you have heard me. I find a few judicial officers also have logged in. They have heard me in the judicial academy. I always say about this judicial and evidentiary admissions, judicial and evidentiary admissions. What is this judicial admission and evidentiary admission. Let us go to section 58 of the evidence act for the benefit of the uninitiated. I'm going to tell you that the evidence act refers to admissions at two places. One in the first part relating to relevancy of facts commencing from section 17 ending with 31 and the second part proof of facts under section 58. I'll first take up section 58. No fat submitted need not be proved. No fact need to be proved in any proceeding. Which the parties there to are their agents, agree to admit at the hearing. We have not reached a stage in this country at least where the parties agree to admit something that the hearing very unlikely. Or which before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands. This is a certain evidence that I read that says. This refers to a situation where intratetries are delivered under order 11 or the notice to admit facts is given under order 12. First, agree to admit at the hearing such a situation is not a possibility in the remote future. Which before the hearing they agree to admit by any writing under their hands. And by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted there by pleading. I have read order 8 rules 8 to 5. It fits of specific denials. Denial need not be evasive and all that and have specifically stated that denial should be very specific. Therefore, if the denial is not specific by a rule of pleading or rate rule 5 says it is deemed to have been admitted. These are the admissions referred to in section 58. They are called judicial admissions. That is admissions made after the matter enters the portals of the court. And the court retards. They need not be proved. They need not be proved. Please make it clear. What need not be proved? Judicial admissions refer to in section 58 of the evidence that need not be proved. I will just lead out to you. The passage from Sartor's law of evidence. And then highlight on this. In the 16th edition. Of Sartor's law of evidence volume 1. 16th edition. Volume 1. At page 11 party and 11 party 1. 11 party and 11 party 1. Dealing with the principle and stock of section 58. This is what the learned author says. Admissions by parties. Voral or documentary to any person before the suit. Out of court. Have been dealt with section 17 etc. Admissions by parties. Either oral or documentary. Before the suit. That is before defining of the suit. Have been dealt with in section 17. I will tell you when that 17 would apply. Such admissions are tendered as evidence. While admissions for purposes of trial. Dispense with proof of particular facts. This section that is 58. Deals with admissions during trial. That is actor before the hearing. Proof of such facts is dispensed with. For the simple reason that the facts admitted require no proof. They are known as. Judicial admissions are stipulations. Dispensing with proof. Then. Admissions in pleading. Are judicial admissions. Admissible in the section 58. Made by the parties or the regents. Attard before the hearing of the case. Stand on a higher footing. Then evidentially admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the parties. That make them and constitute a waiver of proof. The defendant in the written statement. Clearly admits the agreement of sale. Referred to by the plaintiff. But says. That time was of the essence of the contract. Plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform this part of the contract. Hardship would be tossed to him. If I did it for specific performance he's passed. Contract has become frustrated. Here is a case where. There's a clear admission of the execution of the agreement of sale. The former class of admissions that is judicial admissions. Are fully binding on the parties that made them and constitute a waiver of proof. No issue need be afraid. About the execution of the agreement of sale. And with a lot of time being of the essence of the contract. As the law stands in the case of immobile property. The time is not the of the essence of the contract is the presumption. Therefore the defendant has to establish it. Then. They by themselves that is judicial admissions. Can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand. Evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence. Are by themselves not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong. Then admissions for the purpose of trial that is judicial admissions. May be considered as being made. On the record. Which are actual. Either the previous that is already a tool fight. Or in answer to interrogaries are the relevant rule 22. Implied from the readings are great rule 345. Between the parties by agreement in writing before the hearing. By notice under order 12 rules 1 to 4. At the hearing by party or his lawyer. This is the legal position with regard to these admissions. Now. I will dilate on this 17 and 58. A little later. Before that. Kindly make a note of some old decisions of the Supreme Court. I have a reason to cite these old decisions because. The law is very beautifully laid down in them. The landowners section to create the evidence act. 31 of the evidence act have been extracted that have been explained. And we have got number of earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. Explaining the concept of these admissions. To understand that. You need to make a reference to. Section 31 of the evidence act. Admissions are not. Conclusive proof of the facts admitted. But they may operate as estates under the provisions here and after the time. That is what section 31 face. Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. But they may operate as estates under the provisions here and after the time. This is very, very important.  Before that. Let me report to these decisions to the Supreme Court. We can explain these both of these provisions. One important decision of the Supreme Court. To which I find a profuse reference in certain law of evidence and elsewhere also. Is in this famous. No do by a mile. No do by a mile versus. B Shamrao. No do by a mile versus B Shamrao. Reported in a year. Nineteen fifty six KC. Five nine three. Yeah. Nineteen fifty six KC five nine three. This is what the Supreme Court has to say. About admissions. On admission is not conclusive. As to the truth of the matter stated there. It is only a piece of evidence. That is why you find. Section 17 to 31. In the first part of the evidence that dealing with relevancy. Section five of the evidence that says. Perhaps which are declared as relevant by the evidence that I know in girls. Can be received by the court. There's a mandate to report. There's a mandate to report. There's an intention against the court. Don't receive anything. Unless I say that it is relevant. Don't revidence that says. I have declared certain parts to be relevant. Don't receive anything beyond what I have stated. You will find section 17 to 31 in that part of the evidence that dealing with relevancy. It is only a piece of evidence. The way to be attached to which must depend on the circumstances under which it is made. It can be shown to be erroneous or untrue. It can be shown to be erroneous or untrue. So long as the person to whom it was made. Has not acted upon it to his decrement. When it might become conclusive by their festival. That is why 31 says. It may operate as a stable. But it is not conclusive proof of this. This is a very important decision. I request the participants to read this decision. Not just to know the concept of admission. It also deals with the list pendants. By section 50 to the. Transfer of property at. And whether in an execution say it could be. A question of this sentence to be raised all right. The next decision of the Supreme Court. Is in a very famous decision of cited. Year 1960 Supreme Court 100. The names of the parties are too long. But I will only give the first names. Narayan versus Gopal. Narayan versus Gopal. And admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon. And though not conclusive. Is DCC's of the matter. Unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. I'll tell what is the successful withdrawal and erroneous. And give it to me. This is successful with the trial and erroneous. I'm giving these decisions in a total order 56. Then 60. Now 66. Year 1966 SC 405. Year 1966 SC 405. Barak Singh versus Bhaji Rati. Bhaji Rati. Admissions have to be clear. If they have to be used against the person making them. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves. In your section 70. Substantive evidence not conclusive evidence. That there be no mistake about that. They are substantive evidence by themselves in your section 17 and 21 are the Indian evidence had. Though they are not conclusive proof of the matter submitted. We are of the opinion. That the admissions duly proved are admissible evidence. Irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness spots or not. And whether that party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statements. In case it made a statement contrary to those admissions. The purpose of contradicting the witness in the section 140 for the evidence had. Is very much different from the purpose of proving the admission. Admission is substantive evidence of the fact that we did. While a previous statement used to contradict a witness. Does not become substantive evidence. And merely serves the purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of the witness. What weight is to be attached to an admission made by a party is a matter of different from its use as admissible evidence. Is very simple. A piece of evidence will be relevant. Declare relevant by the provisions of the evidence act. It is relevant. It may be admissible out of what use what weight can be attached to it. It is a matter for appreciation of evidence. I will come to 145 of the evidence act also in about five minutes. Then. Yeah yeah 1967 Supreme Court 341. Yeah yeah 1967 Supreme Court 341. Bassam Singh versus John K. Singh. Bassam Singh versus John C. Singh. An admission by a party in a plane. Signed and verified by him in a prior suit in a prior suit. Is an admission within the meaning of section 17 of the Indian evidence that. And maybe proved against him in another litigation. Section 17 of the Indian evidence that may work makes no distinction between. An admission made by a party in a reading and other admissions. Under the Indian law and admission made by a party in a play. Signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other suits. In other suits this admission cannot be regarded as conclusive. And it is open to the party to show that it is not. Then. Yeah yeah 1974 SC. 117. Yeah yeah 1974 SC 117. Vishwanath Prasad versus Varta Prasad. Vishwanath Prasad versus Varta Prasad. Some contention was urged. That certain statements. Which are marketing evidence. Had not been put to the plaintiff when he was in the witness box. Or to be a defendant. Although he had discreetly kept away from giving evidence. They cannot be used against him. Townsend rule our attention to section one party by the evidence act. There's a cardinal distinction between a party who is the author of a prior statement. And a witness who is examined and he's thought to be discredited. When he was in the witness box. There's a cardinal distinction between a party who is the author of a prior statement. And a witness who is examined and he's thought to be discredited. By use of his prior statement. In the former case and admission by a party substantive evidence. If it fulfills the requirements of 21 of the evidence act. In the latter case. A prior statement is used to discredit the credibility of the witness. And does not become substantive evidence. In the former there is no necessary requirement of the statement. Containing the admission having to be put to the party. Because it is evidence appropriate. In the latter case. The court cannot be invited to disbelieve a witness. On the strength of a prior contradictory statement. Unless it has been put to him. As required by section one party for the evidence act. This distinction has been described in perhaps in states then. A year 1974 SC 471. A year 1974 SC 471. Nagindas versus Dalpatram. Nagindas versus Dalpatram. Admissions if proven clear. Or by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings and judicial admissions. Admissible under section 15 of the evidence act. Made by the parties of the agents. At or before the hearing of the case stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding in the party that makes them. And constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves cannot be made. The foundational rights to parties. On the other hand. Evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trail as evidence. Or by themselves not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong. A year 1977 SC. 1724. A year 1977 SC. 1724. It is in relation in election matter but the law is laid out. Thiru John. Thiru John versus. The returning officer. It is well settled that a party submission has defined in 17 to 20. And it is in relation to. Fulfilling the requirements of 21. Substantive evidence. And admission. Clearly and unequivocally made the best evidence against the party. Making it. And do not inclusive. Ships the owners on to the matter on the principle. That what a party himself admits to be true. Reasonably we presume to be true. Until. The presumption was rebutted. To be established. Now. A reading of some of these decisions. Uses an indication that there is some conflict between them. What is this admission refer to in section 58. And what is it that is referred to in section 70. This conflict has been resolved. Rather explained. Say that there is no conflict at all. Both the decisions are reconcilable. That is in Dilip Kumar versus Ramu. Dilip Kumar versus Ramu. It's a Karnataka judgment. ILR 1990 to Karnataka 2905. We need not go to that judgment. But I will tell you what it is. I just want to make it clear. That I am not making an academic presentation of these things. I don't believe in it. We are all professionals. You should know. To make use of these provisions in conducting the civil trial. My concern is that. I do not know. What the trend elsewhere with that tree is. Here in Karnataka. I have worked in a few places. And again I have determined to arbitration. This is what I have for. Plaintiff is in the witness spots. The question is asked to him by the opponent council. Have you stated so in the plane? Have you not stated so in the plane? Defendant is the witness spots. A similar question is put by a plaintiff council. Have you stated so in the written statement or have you not stated so in the written statement? Plaint and written statement are not previous statements to be confronted. There is no question of contradicting the plaint at the written statement under 145 of the evidence act. They are a part of the record. Admissions contained in the plaint and the written statement are judicial admissions which need not be proved. That is what section 58 of the evidence act says. But a different situation arises. The suit. Which is. Being tried. Is between X and Y. X is the plaintiff in the suit. Y is the defendant in the suit. There is another suit between X and Y. Where their rank is infallible. Y is the plaintiff in that suit. X is the defendant in that suit. Either X or Y in the other suit. Would have taken a stand. The contrary to the standard and its present suit that is which is under trial. Are inconsistent with it. Then the plaint at the written statement in the other suit needs to be confronted to him on opportunity has to be given. It is open to the plaintiff or the defendant. When confronted with the written statement or the plaint in the previous suit to give an explanation. Whether the court ultimately accepts the explanation or not is a different matter. It is in the realm of appreciation of evidence. Law permits him to explain it. That is what says unless the admission is successfully withdrawn or erroneous. Under an erroneous impression I did it. Now let us take a case where a suit is for permanent intention. Plaintiff says at a partition the suit property felt his share since then he is in exclusive possession. The defendants who are his brothers or someone are interfering with his possession. This is the stand taken by the plaintiff in a particular suit. Now in some other suit he takes a stand that the properties are yet undivided. Maybe the defendant in the suit files a suit for declaration on a similar government that there is a partition and he has the owner of it or something of that kind. He takes a different stand saying that there is no partition and there cannot be an indentation. It is in a different suit. Now the plaintiff in the previous suit where pointed one for intention is the witness box in the other suit. The plaintiff in the previous suit can be confronted to him.  He might deny or admit. Then confront the plaintiff to him. Did you plead in that suit that there is already a partition and the property which was the subject matter of the suit which may incidentally be one of the properties in the suit for partition declaration whatever it is.  He may admit it. He may also say, well, I wanted loan from a bank. The bank was not prepared to lend money without there being a document evidence in partition. It was in this it was in those circumstances we prepared some follow-up or tear whatever it is that the data exchange and other things. It was in those circumstances that actually really no partition. The court may not ultimately accept that explanation. Other evidence may be that may prove it to be wrong. But an opportunity is available. Long use that opportunity to the party to explain why he made that admission. There could be a sale date. Well, in a suit for partition, the father may contend that it is joint family property only. One of the defendants may, I mean the plaintiff may contend that it is joint family property only. But the sale date was taken in the name of one of the funds for some purpose to avoid payment of heavy income tax, all that. Whether those fees are hit by the provisions of the Venom and Transactions Act is a different aspect of the matter. Such a plea is taken. Now it is in the previous suit such a stand was taken. It may be open to him to explain. Well, for this reason, we took up such a stand. Therefore, the plaintiff in the previous suit or in some other connected suit or the written statement in that suit can be confronted, should be confronted and an explanation will have to be taken. But the plaintiff written statement in the very suit in which evidence is going on, need not be confronted, should not be confronted, cannot be confronted. Please be patient. It is a judicial admission. I go a step further. In a suit for partition, the defendants take up a plea that certain items of the suit should be due or joint family properties. Set up a prior partition, as far as those items are concerned, in respect of the rest they take a stand that they are their self acquisitions. Please be very clear about this. Let me restate the facts. Suites for partition, defendants take up a contention that items so and so are joint family properties, but there has already been a partition. Restary properties are our self acquisitions. That is the stand taken by the defendants. One of them is in the witness parts. I have seen this in my experience as a triage. Despite there being a clear admission in the written statement, a judicial admission, that the other product, some items so and so are joint family properties. The council for the plaintiff still puts a question that items one, two, three are joint family properties. There is already an admission. And forgetting that there is an admission or intentionally or ignorantly, inadvertently by whatever it is, the defendant who is the witness parts derision. Are you following what I am telling? There is a clear admission in the written statement that those properties are joint family properties. Despite that admission, the plaintiff council makes a submission to him that they are joint family properties. These defendants have a tendency to deny everything that is put to them in the witness parts. Just as an accuser denies everything when examined in the 13 CRPC, he replaces them. Now, in the course of arguments, a contention is heard knowing the evidence he has stated so. Are we to go by the judicial admissions content in written statement or by this suggestion? A suggestion we could not have been made and an answer we should not have been given. Therefore, please stop here afterwards from tomorrow. The habit of confronting the plaint and the written statement in the suit in which the trial is going done. Put in suggestions online with it or contrary to it. Sometimes I have also seen a different stand is taken during the course of trial, forgetting what the stand taken the plaint of written statement is. Please avoid that. So, playing the written statement in a previous suit needs to be confronted. An opportunity has to be given to the affluent to explain. As I said repeatedly, explanation may not be acceptable. It may be self-serving only to get over that he may do it. But if the court is convinced that is an explanation work accepting that could be done. Then we have what is known as during the course of trial also denials to be very specific, not just in the previous. Denials to be very specific during the course of trial also. You must specifically deny. If you have taken a stand that the agreement of sale is not executed by the defendant at all. Put him. This is not the signature of the defendant. He did not execute this document. The signature is for make a specific denial. Suddenly taking a stand, you took his signature on a blank paper. A suggestion contrary to the stand taken in the written statement. Please avoid this. I am not accusing anybody. My experience tells this is the way the trial goes on. Maybe there is lack of preparation. Maybe the plaint and the written statement are not looked into. Or maybe they take a chance during the course of trial. Any stand taken by you without a foundation, the bleeding will not take you any further. And then there must be consistency and uniformity in making the suggestions. Whether to the same witness or different witness. To one witness, a suggestion is made. To another witness, a different solution is made. In the written statement, a stand is taken. In the plaint, a stand is taken. Some other suggestion is made. Consistency in solutions, uniformity in solutions is required. Though I said that the emphasis is on civil trial. In proceedings under 138 of the NIR, this is what I have noticed. The first occasion for the accused to state his case is when he receives the notice of dishonor. If he replies some stand. The second occasion is when the complainant is in the witness parts by cross-examining. The suggestion which is not found in the reply statement is put to the complainant in the witness parts. Third, when the accuser gets an opportunity to have his say when examined under 330, many times no stand is taken. Everything is taken. Fourth, when the accused enters the witness parts. Different stands are taken. They would not take you anywhere, particularly when there is a presumption under 139 of the evidence stand. Therefore, let there be consistency and uniformity in making suggestions or denials, whether to the same witness or different witnesses. I told you that I would take you through the Providence of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. You will find that 145 is in part 3 of the Evidence Act dealing with production and effect of evidence. 1721 are in first part dealing with relevancy. 58 is in the second part dealing with proof of facts. 145, you see where it is placed. It is in chapter 9 with the title examination of witnesses. 135, order of production and examination of witnesses. 136, judge to decide as per visibility of evidence. 137, examination in chief cross re-examination. 138, order of examination. 139, cross examination of the person told to producer document. 140, witness to character. 141, leading question when can we ask? 1242, where cannot we ask? 143, where can we ask? 144, evidence has to matters in writing. From 145, you see a host of provisions. Dealing with what is permissible in cross examination. Cross examination has to previous statements in writing, 145. Questions lawful in cross examination, 146. 147, when the witness may be compelled to answer. 148, questions not to be asked without reasonable grounds. 151, indies and scandalous questions to be avoided. 152, questions intended to insult or annoy could be avoided. The title of this part is production and effective evidence. I read out some two or three judgments of the Supreme Court which state that the purpose of confronting a document under section 145 used to test the credibility of the witness. They are different from a previous statement. Paid under section 17 which is an admission by itself. Let me read 145. A witness may be cross examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing and relevant to matters in question without such writing being shown to him or being proved. Those of you who have been practicing in the criminal side are making use of section 145. 145, take it from me, it is not confined to a criminal trial. Even a civil trial, 145 can be effectively made use of. How it is made use of in a criminal trial? The witness is confronted, asked a question. Did you state before the police? If he says he did not state, the matter ends there. If he says he stated something, then the next question is did you state in these terms? Supposing he says I have stated, then also the matter ends without the writing being shown to him. But if it is intended to contradict him by his writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, we talk to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. This is what you are doing in a criminal trial. He has asked a question whether he made such a statement before the police. If he says yes, end of the matter. If he denies, then that portion is confronted to him. It then gets marked. In a civil case, in the chief examination, a document gets marked. In a criminal case, under statements under 161, they get marked during the course of cross-examination on behalf of the defense or when the prosecution brings him hostage. Now come back to your civil case. Let us take a simple suit for recovery of money. Now before the suit is filed, the defendant has sent a letter to the plaintiff or SMS or a WhatsApp message saying that she is in some strange circumstances. He needs about two months time to make payment. He does not give any more details. He doesn't say that he borrowed money from the plaintiff on a particular rate. He executed some document, nothing. He simply says, well, the amount which I am due to you, I will pay after another three months because I am no odd customer. The letter is with the plaintiff. Or he has saved that message. The defendant in the written statement denies the loan. Defendant is in the witness spots. Previous statement does not mean a statement retorted before a magistrate or before a tashield or before a police. It is a statement in writing. Now the defendant can be asked when he is in the witness spots, you are able to write, you can identify your writing and all that. Is it a letter written by him? Or before that, did you write a letter to the plaintiff seeking time to make payment? If he says, I wrote it, that is the end of the matter. That it without the writing means shown to him. That is the first part of 145. Second part says, but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, no, I did not say that I need time. The thing was due for me. Why should I say so? Then his attention must be drawn. This is what you have said. This is the message that he has said that can be confirmed. I'll give one more example. Suit is for partition of certain properties. The defendant has taken a stand that there is already a partition. Well, if it is a registered partition, it is an easy whatever for the defendant. If it is an oral partition or a memorandum of partition, not of a previous partition or all that, there is a heavy burden on the defendant to prove a partition. That is a different aspect of the matter. Now, at one point of time, subsequent to the partition created by the defendants, defendants may say about 10 years back after father died, we affected a partition or after grandfather died, my father and uncles affected a partition that could be replayed. Sometimes thereafter, let us say the plaintiff has executed a sale deed in favor of a person, not a party to the suit. Not a party to the suit. We'll call him yes. In that sale deed, he says that the property which he is selling under the deed came to him or rather fell to him to his share, fell to his share at a partition between him and the family members. If following what I'm telling suit is for partition, defendants take up a contention that there is already a partition. Subsequent to the elite partition, plaintiff has executed a sale deed in favor of one yes. The recitals in the sale deed say, at a partition in the family, the property which is the subject matter that sale need fell to his share. Now, when the plaintiff is in the witness box, this certificate, because the original cannot be with the defendant, the original is with the yes was purchased with the property from yes. Defendant can confront a certified copy of it or a photostat copy of it or whatever it is, whatever is available with him. He may ask, do you know yes? If the plaintiff is intelligent, he knows why he is asking that question. Once he says that there are several yes in my place, which says yes son of wife. This is how it goes on with the asset examination. Ultimately, he gives an indication that he knows yes to which the reference is made by the defendant. Did you sell any property to him? I might have sold several properties. How do I remember? If you show me the deed, I can tell something of that kind. Or he may deny it. No, I have not sold any property. Then he may say yes, I have sold that property. Then his question is, did you in that sale deed say that there's already a partition and that property fell to your share? If he says yes, that is the end of the matter. If he denies it, then this copy which is with the defendant can be confronted to him to show this is what he has stated. This is the purpose of 145, how we can make use of it in a civil case. Then we have this stray admissions. The legal position is very clear. These stray admissions are liable to be ignored. Here, whether it is the plaintiff or particularly in the context of the defendant's case, there is a consistent denial of the case of the plaintiff rather the material case of the plaintiff in several parrots of the written statement. On the same lines, the suggestion is made to the plaintiff. The defendant in his chief examination also denies it, takes a similar stand. During the course of trust examination, some question is put to him. Some question is put to him. Let us say a suit for indention. The case of the plaintiff is that there is a fence around his property. The defendant tried to remove that fence and thereby interfere with his possession. In the course of trust examination, the defendant says, yes, I removed that fence. Yes, it is true, I removed the fence. Does it mean that the defendant has admitted the plaintiff's possession? There is a consistent denial of the case of the plaintiff. In the written statement, it is denied. In the trust examination of the plaintiff, it is suggested that he is neither in possession, nothing, no interference. Here, it is a case of the examination. The fence that he means is something which he has put and which the plaintiff wanted to remove. Something of that kind, it was my friends, he has put it, he has put the fence in my side of the property. Therefore, I removed something of that kind. These are all stray admissions. Secondly, unless we enter the witness spots, we will not be knowing the stress that a witness undergoes in the witness spots. When several questions are put to him, his mind goes blank. Even in respect of certain questions to which he knows the answers very correctly, he may write a blank and either believe he doesn't know it or may keep mum or being exhausted, he may say yes. Do not take them as admissions. In what context they are made? What is the suggestion that is made? What is the next suggestion and the previous suggestion? Don't rely upon these stray admissions. Draw the attention of the court only to those admissions and the familiar saying admitted facts need not be proved. This will not take your case any further. Examine whether they are stray admissions. They are liable to be ignored. So, to say when they are not stray admissions, the suggestion should be very clear. Many times what I have done as a trial judge and still doing as an arbitrator is when I entertain a doubt whether the witness has understood the question, I put the question again and I make a note also in the deposition to a question by the court also or by the arbitrator also, the witness says so. I would ensure myself that the witness has understood the question because in respect of crucial aspects of the case, if he makes an admission, you will have to be extremely careful. Therefore, to say that an admission is not a stray admission, the suggestion should be very clear in what context it is made should be known. Before I take up the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, a quick look at the remaining provisions for the evidence that dealing with admissions. 17, an admission is a statement, oral or documentary are contained in electronic form. It suggests the inferences to any fact in issue or relevant fact that it is made by any of the persons under the circumstances here in before mention. It just defines what an admission is. 18, statements made by a party to the proceeding or by an agent to introduce a party whom the court regards under the circumstances of the case as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them or admissions. 19, statements by persons whose position or liability it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit or admissions if such statements should be relevant as against such persons in relation to the position or liability in a suit brought by or against them. The illustration given is really illustrative already. A undertakes to collect rent for B. A undertakes to collect rent for B. B's use A for not collecting rent due from C to B. A denies that rent was due from C to B. A statement by C that he would be rent is an admission and is a relevant fact as against A. If A denies that C did move rent to B. Then 21 is important. Admissions to be relevant should not be in our own favor. I can't go on telling that the property is my property. So admission, if I made an admission, detrimental to my interest, then only it is an admission relevant to section 21 of the Evidence Act. Well, these are all elaborations of the main principle contained in section 21. At the task of repetition I am telling, admissions referred to in section 17 to 21 are called evidentiary admissions. They will have to be proved during the course of trial. They are not conclusive. They can be shown to be reported. Whereas judicial admissions are a part of the report. Either in answer to interrogaries given under order 11 or in answer to notice to admit facts given under order 12 or by implication they are deemed to have admitted in the previous. Now, this presentation will be incomplete if I do not draw your attention to two provisions of the commercial post dealing with denials. Most of you may be knowing that the commercial post stat is in two parts. First part in the departments I am not saying part one, part two that way. I am loosely using that expression there in two parts or in two portions. One dealing with commercial post stat as such. The second is a schedule appended to the commercial post stat which contains certain amendments brought to the code of field procedure in relation to commercial post. Certain provisions with the code of field procedure are amended in relation to the commercial post. Now, it is very difficult to say whether they are rules section. Some rules are very difficult. It is scheduled. Then in schedule we have one, two, three, four like this. Then you may, I don't know how to say it. In schedule for my reference I will say item number four, it is amendment of first schedule to the code of field procedure. First schedule contains the outer portion. There you will get four capital D, four capital D, row and two. This is how we will have to write four D, two. After rule three of the civil rules of practice, the following rule shall be inserted. That is rule three A. We can roughly say rule three A is inserted in order eight. Denial by the defendant in suits before the commercial division of the high court or the commercial court. Denial shall be the manner provided in sub-rules two, three, four and five of this rule. That is CPC. The defendant in his written statement shall state which of the allegations in the particular in the particulars of the client he denies, which allegations he is unable to admit are denied, but which requires the client to prove and which allegations he admits. So apart from the provisions relating to denials contained in rules three to five of the civil procedure court, those of you who are practicing in the commercial courts need to know the rule three A which speaks of some more details regarding these admissions and denials. And repeat, the defendant in his written statement shall state which of the allegations in the particulars of the client he denies, which allegations he is unable to admit are denied, but which requires the client to prove at which allegations he admits. Then, where the defendant denies an allegation of fact in a plane, he must state his reasons for doing so. He must also say why he denies. And if he intends to put forward a different version even from that given by the plaintiff, he must state his own version. Then, if the defendant disputes the jurisdiction of the court, he must take the reasons for doing so. And if he is able to give his own statement as to which court ought to have jurisdiction. Here, it is not in the case of this commercial courts. I have not a view that in view of section 9 CPC, there being a presumption that all suits of the civil nature can be tried by a civil court. The jurisdiction of the court is presumed, jurisdiction of the civil court is presumed. Authorities say that no authority is required to say that the civil court has got jurisdiction. Many times, the defendant's vacancy says that this court has no jurisdiction. This court is not maintainable. Why this suit is not maintainable? Why this court has no jurisdiction? If this court has no jurisdiction, which is a court? Or which law bars this suit from being filed in this court? I have been telling the judicial officers in the judicial academy in this state, if there is such a very plain written statement that this court has no jurisdiction, suit is not maintainable, don't claim any issue at all. Because the presumption is that the civil court has got jurisdiction. In fact, a very learned judge at the Karnataka High Court for when he was interested in the judicial officers in the academy used to tell, judicial officers would jealously, zealously guard the jurisdiction of the civil court. If you do not guard your own jurisdiction, who else will guard it? Therefore, there must be a very clear plain written statement. Why this court doesn't have jurisdiction? Is it pecuniary? Is it territorial? Or is it on subject matter of the suit? Or any other law bars it? If the defendant disputes the jurisdiction of the court, he must take the reasons for doing so. And if he is able to give his own statement as to which court ought to have jurisdiction. If the defendant disputes the plaintiff's valuation of the suit, he must take his reasons for doing so. And if he is able to give his own statement at the value of his suit, then there is also an amendment to order 11 rule 4, dealing with the introductory, order 11 rule 4, admissions and denial of documents, that is as far as the commercial course is concerned. Each party shall submit a statement of admissions or denials of all documents disclosed and of which inspection has been completed in 15 days of the completion of inspection or any later date as fixed by the court. The statement of admissions and denials shall set out explicitly whether such party was admitting or denying correctness of contents of a document, existence of a document, execution of a document. These are expressions which you find in the evidence act also. Issuance or receipt of a document, custody of a document, explanation. The statement of admission or denial of the existence of a document made in accordance with sub-gurus shall include the admission or denial of the contents of a document. Each party shall set out reasons for denying a document under any of the above grounds and where and unsupported denials shall not be demoted to be denials of a document and proof of such documents may then be dispensed with at the discretion of the court. Any party may however submit bare denials for tele-party documents other details of the document. At one stage during the course of this presentation I said that the proviso to section 58 of the evidence act is similar to the proviso to order 8 rule 5 and I said that I would take it up at the end now is the time for me to take it up please go through order 8 rule 5 sub-rule 2 8 or 8 rule 5 sub-rule 1 proviso provided that the court may in its definition require any facts so admitted to be proved otherwise thereby set admission go to section 58 of the evidence act we have a similar proviso there 58 main part no fact need to be proved which the parties agree provided that the court may in its decision require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise thereby set admissions so there is an indication from this evidence act of 1872 that even in the 19th century there were polluting suits it is not of a recent origin I was told 3 days back by one judicial officer that there is a bar for sale of Gomala lands change of Kata and other things a suit is filed for declaration of title in respect of Gomala land defendant files a written statement conceding for a decree someone else told me that after a decree for specific performance and when the draft when the sale deed is taken to the office of the sub-register register register based on some rule or some government circular refuses registration on the ground that some sketch is not produced to overcome all that some suits are filed consenting for a decree this is a case where the courts will have to be on the guard my request to the legal fraternity is please do not file such polluting suits do not try to overtake the law you may have success in the initial days but in the long run it will not fail just give consent for a decree which will not be passed some government property claiming adverse position and all that will have to be extremely careful because a judicial officer who is aware of the provisions of order 8 who will file more particularly section 58 of the evidence act who take upon put all upon the plaintiff to prove his case despite such admission by the defendant do not find fault with the judicial officers who do it law empowers him to do it he has a duty to do it also I will go to the next slide I will give one example now one yet was in government service he shows the name of Bai as his nominee he says why is his wife he is his nominee yet another woman files a suit for declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of that yet and defendants are her children she does not plead that wife the name of why he is found in the service records of that yet another man she shows him as his wife another woman claiming to be the legally wedded wife of that man files a suit for declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of that woman and defendants are her children the defendants give a show of contest first day they would be watching whether the summons is served they will just watch whether the court issues press summons then on some other day if the summons is served and the court is about to place their expert some council suddenly stands up or the parties say they would like to engage a council all that would give an indication to the court that there is going to be a serious contest in a matter 15 days later a council appears files a memo saying that he undertakes to file a thalak the usual time for written statement and all that one fine day he files both of them file a joint memo to refer the matter to Lothalak for settlement or he files a written statement conceiving every government made any point who are the defendants in the suit the children are the plaintiff they would be happy if their mother is declared as the legal immigrant wife of their father if they are declared as the legitimate children of that person court should be on guard call for the service records what made this woman to file a suit government denied her you get a declaration that wife whose name finds a place in the service records hard one rule 10 empowers the court to impede such persons to a moto by only request to the lawyer sees if there is such a judicial officer who is through to his job don't discourage him, don't find fault with him he is after all doing his duty not exercising his power this is all what I wanted to tell you with regard to admissions and denials thank you for your patient hearing if there are any questions and if I am capable of answering them right now I will do it or arise on some other occasion thank you Mishwitastra no sir it's always a whenever you speak I this time I have stuck to the time this time I have stuck to the time but the way you take this session forward it's so mesmerizing that not only me the other people also get stuck as to how you interplay all these sections and other things with such an ease this is a statement of a counter in the statement of a counter defendant denials specifically denied the plaintiff's case but at one place instead of the documents filed by the plaintiff are created by are created he pleaded the documents filed by the defendant sir you can read that question that's at 722 in a statement of counter defendant denials specifically denied the plaintiff's case but at one place instead of the documents filed by the plaintiff are created he pleaded the documents it is not an admission he can just as he can amend to the written statement by mistake he has said that the documents filed by the defendant are created it is an inadvertent thing which has come in that cannot be taken as a admission the best thing for him is to make an application under 6 school 17 CPC to get over that very liberally such applications are allowed then another question explanation of the use of section 145 in civil matters which is normally used for police service since insertion in 1974 please suggest some reference I am not able to give you any citation as such that example which I gave of a partition sued filed by the plaintiff where in some document he says that there is already a partition therefore that can be taken as then there may be situations where the title there may be another case sued is for declaration of title in respect of a property in some other sale deed it might have been mentioned that to the history property there is the property of the defendant which is none other than the sued property this is also an admission these are things which can be made use of while confronting the plaintiff or the defendant under 145 at the evidence side as the advocate has rightly put it this statement is 145 CRPC the evidence that is made use of only during criminal trial when the witness is cross examine with reference to the statement there is absolutely no bar for doing it I have a jocularly tell these good publications give this evidence that are with CPC and CRPC seems that evidence that is only for criminal trial and similarly as far as limitation act is concerned it is CPC and in the law college also in some universities limitation act is a part of the CPC paper and therefore law has seen that limitation act is not applicable to criminal cases and evidence act is a jocularly telling it is the problem and most of the illustrations in the evidence act are also in relation to criminal matters that is the reason this is how 145 can be made use of yeah and on the youtube chat it is all phrases that you should keep on taking more sessions we are so impressed by your insights one last question is can we mark deposition in one case in another case when the witness is dead section 33 of the evidence that provides for it we can do it yes sir thank you sir it was a really enriching session and we hope that people who have missed it can always watch it subsequently and tomorrow though we talk of the session of beyond law CLC we will be taking Mr. Amarji Chopra a former president of the Chartered Accountants Association careers in Chartered Accountants do stay connected with us at 4pm and we would request sir to take sessions more often and it is always a pleasure for everyone to have pearls of wisdom from you thank you stay safe stay blessed


But Meep kept it so real with Snoop even though Meep introduced the world to Snoop. I mean though, you know He told Snoop to go with the better deal. Yeah But Snoop was like now, you know, I don't loyalty. I'm gonna go ahead and sign So he said my mama give him two years of my life Then I'm gonna start doing my own thing. He said when I'm 25, we're gonna retire My daddy gonna be home and we just gonna live Yeah, we on boss talk one-on-one one-on-one. Yeah, we gonna talk what? I want to ask about Meep If he's talking about buying things and doing things had he even signed a deal already and the money and everything Was starting to come through or had y'all even got that for he had signed his deal But he hadn't gotten his deal money and was so crazy. It's like after this like Snoop was they first sent a deal in January But Snoop was like, it's not right. You know, that's the thing about with him was it That's why I said if this wasn't my son. I just be like this boy was a smart kid, right?  And so that gave him time for the world to get to know him more and more So then other deals started coming to the table. Okay, and the real is Oh, who are we? Well, I know universal records. Okay. I don't know as far as like any other entertainers. Okay, um But that's be sure exactly but the thing that was you have to study up on all this stuff Okay, you didn't know nothing about this industry I started learning after because I had no choice This was sad in my lap. So I had to get educated right because this was new right but Meek kept it so real with Snoop even though meek introduced the world to snoop I mean, you know He told snoop to go with the better deal. Yeah But snoop was like, no, you know out of loyalty. I'm gonna go ahead and sign So he said my mama give him two years of my life Then I'm gonna start doing my own thing. He said when I'm 25, we're gonna retire My daddy gonna be home and we just gonna live That's what he told me. Wow. Did you ever contact his dad to let him know what happened or did anybody?  So he was on lockdown for something But no, he wasn't able to come to the funeral But I did try to get so you called him and told him what was his response I don't really remember because I was so messed up. I don't remember. He wrote a letter though And they read it at the funeral, but I can't remember what his response is All I know is that we have never had the conversation To this day. What happened to him? What happened in court? We've never had those conversations. He's never asked me My version of how our child died. It's all been whatever the streets said. Wow. Well