Okay, I will create a summary based on the provided information. Note that the provided information is insufficient to create a complete case summary, as it only mentions "Section 38 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872" and the date of the Act. A real case summary requires details about a specific dispute that went to court. However, I will provide a general explanation of Section 38 and how a case summary might look if it involved a dispute about its application.

Short Summary

This hypothetical case concerns the interpretation and application of Section 38 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the relevance of statements contained in laws or other publications when the law or publication is itself relevant. The hypothetical holding would depend on the specific facts presented, but it would likely address whether a particular statement from a law or publication was properly admitted as evidence.

Facts

Let's assume the following hypothetical facts: A plaintiff, Mr. Sharma, is suing a defendant, Mr. Verma, for breach of contract. Mr. Sharma seeks to introduce a government notification regarding standard contractual terms in similar industries as evidence of what constitutes a reasonable contract. Mr. Verma objects, arguing the notification is not directly binding on their private contract.

Issues

The main issue is whether the government notification is relevant and admissible under Section 38 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Specifically:

• Is the government notification a "statement of a matter of public or general interest"?
• Is the notification contained in a "law" or "published in a book, pamphlet or other document"?
• Is the existence of such public interest probable?

Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. Sharma)

Mr. Sharma argues that the government notification is relevant because it reflects the standard practices in the industry and thus helps establish the reasonableness of the terms he proposed in the contract. He contends that the notification is a statement of a matter of public interest, published by a government authority, and therefore admissible under Section 38.

Respondent's Arguments (Mr. Verma)

Mr. Verma argues that the notification is not binding law and only serves as a guideline. He claims it's not directly relevant to the specific contract between him and Mr. Sharma, which was a private agreement. He may also argue that the notification doesn't truly represent a matter of "public interest" as contemplated by Section 38.

Court's Reasoning

The court would analyze whether the notification falls within the scope of Section 38. It would consider:

• The nature of the notification and whether it pertains to a matter of public or general interest.
• Whether the notification was published in a manner contemplated by the section (e.g., official gazette, government publication).
• Whether the notification is being used to prove the existence of a public right or custom or a matter of general interest.
• The court will also consider the probative value of the notification and whether it is unfairly prejudicial to the defendant.

Conclusion

The ruling would depend on the court's assessment of the above factors. If the court finds that the notification meets the requirements of Section 38 and is relevant to the case, it may admit the notification as evidence. If not, the evidence would be excluded. The specific relief granted would depend on the overall outcome of the breach of contract case.