proof affidavit

It is a well settled principle of law unless and otherwise the deposition of the witness is scrappped by an order of the court, the same stands good in law.  When a proof affidavit has been accepted and only the documents alone have not been marked and rejected, it is construed that the evidence of the person sworning the proof affidavit stands and there fore unless the proof affidavit is scrapped by an order of the court it stands good as deposition of the witness

I think after the rejection of the documents from the evidence the affidavit lost its value for the purpose of the proff of the documents and otherwise it is useful.

dear respected advocates

thanks for the reply. in my case, the documents were marked but they were rejected as irrelevant and cannot be relied upon in the eyes of law.

but the judge holds that proof affidavits themselves are valid evidence. 

in my view, when the documents described in the proof affidavit are rejected (not on the basis of evidence act but on the question of relevancy), the proof affidavit cannot be relied upon as a piece of evidence in itself.

please correct me if am wrong.

It is not your personal opinion but the CPC and Evidence Act which prevails and according to rules even if no document is relied upon in any affidavit even then it is duly admissible.

In Your case no any document has been rejected rather have not been found relevant. So this is not a sin and do not given any chance in your favour to get the evidence of such witness as inadmissible. There is no such provision in law.

In your case unless otherwise the evidence or proof affidavit is scarapped the same stands good in law as evidence

I agree with raj kumar makkad