The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. In the
suit the plaintiff relied upon a registered sale deed dated 26.7.1926,
executed by one Bhanwaria and based his title in the property upon the said
sale deed. The said registered sale deed was in Urdu script and language.
After filing of the appeal against the dismissal of suit by
the learned trial Court, the plaintiff-appellant submitted an application with
prayer that the plaintiff had during the trial filed a copy of the registered
sale deed which was written in Urdu script and with a view to facilitate the
Court to peruse and go through the contents of the said document, the
appellant is filing a correct translation of the same in Devanagari script
having translated the document from Urdu script to Devanagari script (in
Hindi).
The appellant further submitted that so far as the
application was concerned, it was not one under O. 41, R. 27, C.P.C. of
leading any additional evidence but in fact the appellant was only submitting
the translated version of the document, the registered sale deed of the year
1926 which has already been filed before the learned trial Court and admitted
in evidence of the plaintiff and since the parties were not conversant with
Urdu language or the script, the appellant could not state before the Court as
to what were the contents of the said documents. When the suit was dismissed
by the learned Trial Court the appellant with a view to overcome the aforesaid
difficulty, produced before the Court the translated version which cannot be
said to be by means of an additional evidence strictly in accordance with the
provisions of O. 41, R. 27, C.P.C. It was evident from the document that the
counsel had certified and put an endorsement.
The Hon’ble Court held that the provisions of O. 14, R.27,
C.P.C. were not strictly applicable as it was not a case where any additional
evidence was sought to be produced by the appellant which had not been filed
before the learned trial Court and was being sought to be filed for the first
time in the appeal. By the application, all that the petitioner sought to do
was to file a translated copy of sale deed which is in Urdu language by filing
a translation in Devanagari script in Hindi for being appreciated by the Court
and it is for this purpose that the application was filed by the plaintiff.
The Rule 37 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 requires (1)
that a correct translation of the document which is not written in Hindi or
English to be accompanied by a translation of the same into Hindi written in
Devanagari script; (2) that the translated document must bear a certificate of
the party’s counsel to the effect that it is a correct translation; and (3)
that if the party filing the same is not represented by a counsel, the Court
shall have the same certified by any person appointed by it at the cost of the
party seeking to produce the document.
The document which had been filed before the Appellate
Court showed that it was signed by the advocate who had endorsed the same to
be the true translated copy from Urdu script into Devanagari script. It was
not the case that the aforesaid document was not a correct translation, but
the application had been rejected by the learned Appellate Court on the ground
that it does not bear endorsement and the name of the person who has
translated the said document.
A look at Rule 37 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986, goes
to show that the requirement is that “the translation shall bear a certificate
of the party’s counsel to the effect that the translation is correct.” The
Rule does not require an endorsement by the counsel that he has translated the
document into Hindi but only requires a certificate ‘the translation is
correct’.
In view of the matter, the learned Appellate Court which
did not advert to the provisions of Rule 37 of the General Rules (Civil),
1986, while passing the order committed an error of jurisdiction.
[Prahlad Singh vs. Suraj Mal & Ors., AIR 2009
Rajasthan 53].
