Section 91

This rule stops a party from gaining an unfair advantage by hiding a document instead of bringing it to court. Historically, under the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 89, which this section replaces), the law recognized that if a person withholds a document after being asked to produce it, courts should not have to prove every technical detail of its execution from scratch. The presumption discourages deliberate non-production and keeps trials from stalling over technicalities when the non-producing party itself created the problem.

Courts have generally treated this as a rebuttable presumption—meaning the party who withheld the document can still explain the non-production or the other side can bring separate evidence to disprove proper execution. Judgments under the corresponding provision in the 1872 Act clarified that the presumption applies only after a valid notice to produce has been served and ignored; it does not apply if there was no notice or if the document was produced but merely disputed on other grounds.

• Myth: This means the court will always believe whatever the other side says about the missing document.
  Fact: The court only presumes proper attestation, stamping, and execution—it doesn't automatically accept every claim about the document's contents. The presumption can also be challenged with other evidence.
• Myth: This section applies anytime a document isn't produced.
  Fact: It applies only when there was a formal notice to produce the document and the party still failed to bring it, as courts have clarified under the earlier corresponding provision.