DEAR EXPERTS,
AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS NOTORISED, BUT THE SAME WAS DESTROYED AND TO INSTITUTE A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ANOTHER ANTE DATED AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS MANUFACTURED BY THE PLAINTIFF. THE MANUFACTURED AGREEMENT WAS OBVIOUSLY NEITHER NOTORISED AGAIN NOR REGISTERED.
LATER IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE DEFENDANTS THAT THERE IS EXISTENCE OF AN SIMILAR NOTORISED AGREEMENT TO SELL OTHER THAN THE ONE USED FOR SUIT. ON THOROUGH ENQUIRY THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE NOTARY REGISTER COULD BE OBTAINED. PLAINTIFF WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE NOTORISED AGREEMENT BEFORE COURT,BUT THE DEMAND TO PRODUCE THE SAME WAS TURNED DOWN WITH A PLEA THAT NO SUCH AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS EVER EXECUTED BY OR WITH HIM ALLEGING IT IS THE ACT OF DEFENDANTS.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING THE HONBLE COURT CONSIDERED THE PLEAD DIRECTED THE NOTARY PUBLIC TO PRODUCE THE REGISTER IN THE COURT.
WHETHER THE REGISTER ITSELF IS SUFFICIENT TO BE ACCEPTED AS VALUABLE EVIDENCE ?
CAN HE REGISTER ITSELF BE CONSIDERED AS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DROP THE SUIT ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE OR NOTARY PUBLIC BE CALLED FOR IN PERSON FOR EVIDENCE ? IF NOTARY PUBLIC IS CALLED FOR AND EVIDENCE RECORDED AGAINST PLAITIFF WILL THE SUIT BE DROPPED ?
OR ANY OTHER WAY AS REMEDY.
