MANU/DE/1352/2001

Equivalent Citation: 96(2002)DLT131, 2002(3)RCR(Civil)239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CR No. 607/2000

Decided On: 02.08.2001

Appellants: Shail Kumari

Vs.
Respondent: Saraswati Devi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.

Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/plaintiff: Ravi Gupta, Adv

For Respondents/Defendant: Mohit Khanna, Adv.

Case Note:
a) The case focused on the maintainability of single
revision petition assailing two orders passed on separate
and different subject matter - It was ruled that generally,
order on different subjects, even though decided by a
common order would be a subject matter of challenge in
different revision petition - Further, it was ruled that for
the sake of justice in certain cases, the Court may exercise
power under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
b) The case focused on the proper stage to decide the
question of admissibility of a document with respect to
Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
It was ruled that question related to admissibility of the
document would be decided on tendering of the same in
evidence and was duly proved - Further, it was also ruled
that it would not be correct to defer the decision on the
question of admissibility of document at the stage of
arguments
c) The case focused on the effect of marking of an exhibit
on the document with respect to Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - It was ruled that the
marking of an exhibit would not form a part of the
evidence - It could only be referred for identifying the
document

JUDGMENT

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

June 22, 2022 Page | 1
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.
1. ADMIT.
2. On the request of
counsel for the parties
arguments were heard for
final disposal of the matter.
3. This revision petition
raises a simple as well as a
question of great
importance to the
subordinate courts as to
whether in the trial of a
civil suit during
examination of a witness
when a document is
tendered in evidence and it
is sought to be proved the
question of admissibility of
that document and marking
of the exhibit thereon may
be deferred till the stage of
hearing of final arguments.
4. The factual matrix of the
case is that the
petitioner/plaintiff filed a
civil suit for declaration that
she was the sole and
absolute owner of the
disputed wall and also for
grant of permanent
injunction restraining the
respondent from raising
any further construction in
the suit property. On
contest by the respondent
the trial court framed the
issues. The petitioner did
not enter into the witness
box herself. She examined
her daughter Ms. Geeta
Rohtagi as PW-3 to prove
her case. In her statement
Ms. Geeta Rohtagi stated
that the petitioner had
executed a power
attorney in her favor and
she identified the
signatures of the petitioner
on that document. The
court put 'mark X' on the
document and recorded
following observations in
the statement:-
"The document is got
marked because it has
been filed at a belated
stage. And there is not
photocopy of same is
available on the record. Its
admissibility to be decided
at the time of final
arguments."
5. PW3 Ms. Geeta Rohtagi
further stated that her
mother, the petitioner,
became owner of the
property by virtue of a
registered settlement deed
dated 5.9.1950. She has
brought the original deed of
settlement, Hindi
translation of which is
'marked Y'. Below it the
court recorded the following
observations:-
The document has been
marked because of the fact
that there is not copy of the
same available on record in
Urdu language. Though the
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
submits that the translation
of the same is on record in
Hindi. Whether should be
exhibited or not is to be
decided at the stage of final
argument.
6. Thereafter the petitioner
filed an application under
Order 13 Rule 1 & 2 read
of with Section 151 CPC
seeking permission of the

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

June 22, 2022 Page
court to produce photocopy upon the judgment in Nand
of the settlement deed Ram v. Karnail Singh and
dated 5.9.1950 in Urdu Ors. MANU/PH/0066/1978 :
script and also photocopy AIR 1978 P&H 100 has
of a registered general argued that a single
power of attorney dated petition may be filed for
31.7.1998. She moved assailing two decisions if
another application under made by a common order.
Section 151 CPC, inter alia, I have considered the
praying that the objections judgment cited by him and
with regard to the do not find that it supports
exhibition of the two his argument. In the
documents be decided at judgment the High Court
this stage rather than has exercised its own
deferring them for decision powers suo motu for
at the stage of final dealing with the second
argument. She also moved matter observing that it
an application for was within the competence
amendment of the issue of the High Court to set
No. 1. All these three aside the second order if
applications were disposed the second order seem to
of by the learned Civil have been passed either in
Judge by a common order excess or without
dated 15.2.2000. jurisdiction or with material
irregularity or illegality in
7. The petitioner is exercise of the jurisdiction
aggrieved by the order of by the trial court. The court
the learned Civil Judge by also considered the second
which he had declined to order because the
allow her to file the application for amendment
subsequent power of was really not a serious
attorney dated 31.7.1998 matter. Therefore, I doubt
and has deferred decision that a single revision
on the question of petition challenging two
admissibility of the separate and distinct orders
documents marked 'X' and dealing with different
'Y' and marking of exhibits subject matters is
on them at the stage of maintainable. Ordinarily
recording of evidence, to orders on different
the stage of hearing of final subjects, even though
arguments. decided by a common
order, should be subject
8. At the outset a question matter of challenge in
was posed to the counsel different revision petitions.
for the petitioner whether To do complete justice in
one revision petition certain cases if the court
assailing two orders passed finds it appropriate it may
on separate and distinct exercise its powers given
subject matter in a civil suit by Section 115 CPC for
is competent. The counsel revising an order on finding
for the petitioner relying

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

June 22, 2022 Page
that the second order is the
result of an error of
jurisdiction, illegality
material irregularity
exercise of jurisdiction by
the trial court. Like the
case of nand Ram v.
Karnail Singh and Ors.
(supra) second order is not
of much consequence. It is
that order by which the
trial court had refused
permission to the petitioner
to file a power of attorney
executed by the petitioner
in favor of her daughter Ms.
Geeta Rohtagi
31.7.1998. The petitioner
had executed a power of
attorney in the name of her
daughter on 29.11.1998. A
copy of this power of
attorney has been marked
'X' during the deposition of
Ms. Rohtagi. The trial court
dismissed the application of
the petitioner for filing the
new power of attorney
observing that the old
power of attorney and the
new power of attorney
were similar and,
Therefore, new power of
attorney was not relevant.
The argument of
counsel for the petitioner is
that the difference between
the two power of attorneys
is that the petitioner has
ratified all the acts and
deeds of her daughter Ms.
Rohtagi by a power of
attorney dated 31.7.1998
and in order to avoid any
possible objection on any of
the action taken by Ms.
Rohtagi on behalf of the
petitioner in this suit, this
power of attorney becomes
relevant to be filed and
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
June 22, 2022
taken into consideration.
This submission has not
or been controverter on behalf
in of the respondent.
therefore in my view of
these facts the trial court
committed grave error in
not allowing the petitioner
to place new power of
attorney dated 31.7.1998
on record and prove it. The
respondent could have
been adequately
compensated by cost. The
order of the trial court
disallowing the filing of
on power of attorney dated
31.7.1998 is unsustainable
in law and should be set
aside.
9. Now I pass on to the
second question which
needs examination in
detail.
10. The learned Civil Judge
has relied upon heavily on
the judgment in Sudir
Engineering Co. v. Nitco
Roadways Ltd.
MANU/DE/0414/1995 :
1995IIAD(Delhi)189 in
deciding that the question
the of admissibility and
marking exhibit on the two
documents shall be
considered by him at the
stage of hearing of final
arguments.
11. The short question here
is whether the trial court
was justified in postponing
the decisions on the
admissibility and marking
of exhibit on documents
marked 'X' and marked 'Y'
when the statement of the
witness Ms. Geeta Rohtagi
PW-3 was being recorded
Page
for tendering and proving documents. Para 7 makes it
them. Decision of this Court clear that endorsement by
in Sudir Engineering Co. the Court Master of exhibit
(supra), to my view, will number on a document is
not be of much help in 'admission in evidence' and
deciding this question. The not proof of a
question of marking exhibit document...... Every Court
on documents during the is free to regulate its own
recording of the statement affairs within the
of the witness, who were framework of law. Chapter
examined to prove it, arose XIII Rule 3 above said
in a civil suit which was contemplates documents
tried by the High Court in admitted in evidence being
exercise of its original numbered in such manner
jurisdiction. This Court as the Court may direct. I
decided it in the light of the make it clear for this case
Rules applicable and and for all the cases
practices followed by it coming up before me in
while trying original suit. It future that the documents
is clear from the following tendered and admitted in
observation: evidence shall be marked
with numerical serial
"I have looked into the numbers, prefixed by Ext. P
provisions of Delhi High if filed by plaintiff or
Court (Original Side) Rules petitioner and prefixed by
1967 also. Chapter XIII Ex.D if filed by defendant
Rule 3 provides for or respondent."
documents admitted in
evidence being numbered 12. Delhi High Court
in such manner as the (Original Side) Rules and
Court may direct...... the Original Side Practice
Directions of this Court, on
.....There is an Original many matters, were
Side Practice Direction (No. materially different from
3 of 1974) which vide paras the provisions of Punjab
6 and 7 provides..... A bare High Court Rules and
reading of this Practice Orders as applicable to
Direction shows that it is subordinate court in Delhi
not artistically drafted and the practice prevailing
'Proved' as used in para 6, in the Civil Subordinate
is nothing else except used Courts.
loosely for 'put in'
'produced' or 'tendered'. 13. The practice in the
After all the question of Subordinate Civil Courts is
proof is not answered by that a document, which is
the Court during the tendered by a party and is
statement of witnesses admitted in evidence by the
simultaneously with court, is marked exhibit
production of documents number (i) if it is admitted
nor does the Court Master by the opposite party, or
decide upon proof of (ii) its formal proof has

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

June 22, 2022 Page
been dispensed with by the of the proceedings in the
opposite party affected by suit. But in cases where
it, or (iii) it is certified such document is marked
copies of public document exhibit without due
or otherwise admissible in application of mind in
evidence like certified violation of provisions of a
copies issued under statute requiring a
Bankers' Books Evidence particular mode of proof
Act 1891, or (iv) is 30 etc., the opposite party
years old document or (v) may still show during the
it has been proved by hearing of final arguments
judicial evidence in that the document is
accordance with the inadmissible in evidence
provisions of Indian and should be excluded
Evidence Act. Sometimes from consideration because
the trial court also put of statutory bar or non-
exhibit number with note compliance of statutory
'objected' by counsel of the requirement about mode of
plaintiff or defendant (the proof or otherwise. For
affected party) or writing instance a will is required
note 'subject to objection' to be proved by examining
or 'subject to objection of at least one of the attesting
the counsel' for the party witnesses in accordance
affected by the document. with Section 68 of the
The exhibit number put on Evidence Act. A document
a document signifies its which is in-admissible for
acceptance and want of registration or
admissibility in evidence proper stamp is in-
and also that it has been admissible in evidence,
proved by judicial evidence unless use of it is
or otherwise and that it will permissible for collateral
be read in evidence. purposes or extracts of
Writing of words 'objected' accounts book without
by opposite party or production of books of
'subject to objection' by account and proof that they
opposite party indicates were kept in ordinary
that the question of course of business. Mere
admissibility is kept open to putting of exhibits number
be decided later or at the on these documents in the
time of hearing of final absence of their proof in
arguments and the marking accordance with law does
of exhibit is only provisional not make them part of the
or tentative. evidence to be read for
deciding the suit. In Sait
14. In case a document is Tarajee Khimchand and
marked exhibit without an Ors. v. Yelamarti Satyam
objection from the party and Ors.
which is affected by that MANU/SC/0022/1971 :
document ordinarily its AIR1971SC1865 the
admissibility cannot be Supreme Court has laid
questioned at a later stage
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
June 22, 2022 Page
down that mere marking of 15. Let me now examine
an exhibit does not the High Court Rules and
dispense with the proof of Orders on this subject.
the document. All those Part-G of Chapter-1 of
document which are not Punjab High Court Rules
proved in the view of the and Orders deals with the
court by judicial evidence documentary evidence.
are simply to be marked for Rule-1 of this part is
the purpose of their relating to production of
identification. Ordinarily the documents by the
this marking is done as A, parties. Rule-2 is about
B, C, OR X, Y, Z and if they filing of the documents with
are in a bunch then A1 to the list and the
A5 etc. On the other hand, preservation of the
the documents which have documents. Rule-3 requires
been tendered in evidence the court to formally call
and have been admitted in upon the parties at the first
evidence and in view of the hearing at the time of the
court they have been framing of the issues to
proved by judicial evidence produce their documents.
or otherwise and/or Late production of the
admissible in law are documents by the parties is
marked exhibit number dealt by Rule-4. Rule-5
such as Exhibit P1, P2, if requires a note to be made
they are documents of the of defective documents
plaintiff and Exhibit D1, D2 erased or underlined or
if they are documents of a which present suspicious
defendant. Sometimes they appearance. Rule-6 says
are even given exhibit mark that the court should be
writing the number of careful to distinguish
witness which proved it like between mere production
PW1/1 or DW1/1 etc. The of documents and their
distinctive feature of the "admission in evidence"
two marking is that while after being either 'admitted'
the marking exhibit on a by the opposite party or
document is regarded to be 'proved' according to the
its admissibility in evidence law. It further provided that
and its becoming part of when documents are
evidence until the court at produced by the parties
subsequent stage they are only temporarily
considered it to have not placed on the record
been proved and legally subject to their being
admitted into evidence in admitted in evidence in due
view of some statutory bar course and the only
etc., a document on which documents which are duly
a simple marking is put admitted in evidence form
does not form part of the part of the record while the
evidence and it could only rest must be returned to
be referred for identifying the parties producing it. It
that document. states as under:

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

June 22, 2022 Page
"6. Courts should be careful Legislature to be used as
to distinguish between evidence, the Judge will
mere production of admit it, read it or so much
documents and their of it as the parties may
'admission in evidence' desire to be read. When the
after being either 'admitted' opposite party does not
by the opposite party or admit the document, the
'Proved' according to law. procedure to be followed is
When documents are given in Rule-9. It says if
'produced' by the parties, the opposite party objects
they are only temporarily to a document being
placed on the record admitted in evidence, two
subject to their being questions commonly arise:
'admitted in evidence' in first is whether the
due course. Only document is authentic and
documents which are duly second is whether it is
'admitted in evidence' form legally admissible in
a part of the record, while evidence against the party
the rest must be, returned who is sought to be
to the parties producing affected by it. The latter
them (Order XIII, Rule 7). question in general, is a
matter of argument only;
16. Rule-7 deals with the but the first must, as a
tender of the documents in rule, be supported by such
evidence. It provides that testimony as the party can
document which the party adduce. It is followed by
intended to use as evidence Rule 10 which says that all
against his opponent must legal objections as to the
be formally tendered by admissibility of a document
him in the course of should, as far as possible,
proving his case. If a be promptly disposed of,
document has been placed and the court should
on the record it may be carefully note the objection
referred to for the purpose raised and the decision
and if it is not on the record thereon. It further provided
it must be called to be that the court is bound to
produced by the person in consider, suo-motu,
whose custody it was. The whether any document
procedure to be followed sought to be proved is
when the documents were relevant and whether there
admitted by the opposite is any legal objection to its
party has been given in admissibility. There may be
Rule-8. It says that if the certain classes of
opposite party does not documents which are
object to the documents wholly inadmissible in
being admitted in evidence, evidence for certain
an endorsement to that fact purpose owing to the
must be made by the Judge defects such as want of
with his own hand and if registration etc. and there
the document is not such may be others in which the
as is forbidden by the
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
June 22, 2022 Page
defect could be cured, for such evidence can be let in,
example by payment of exist. If an old document is
penalty in case of certain sought to be proved under
unstamped or insufficiently Section 90, the court
stamped documents. To be should satisfy by every
precise it is reproduced reasonable means that it
below:- comes from proper
custody. Certain points
"All legal objections as to which the courts should
the admissibility of a bear in mind when the
document should, as far as signature attestation of the
possible, be promptly document is sought to be
disposed of, and the Court proved are mentioned in
should carefully note the Rule 12. Rule 14 is
objection raised and the regarding endorsements on
decision thereon. the documents admitted in
evidence. Being relevant
The Court is also bound to for the controversy, it is
consider, suo motu, reproduced below:-
whether any document
sought to be proved is "Every document 'admitted
relevant and whether there in evidence' must be
is any legal objection to its endorsed and signed or
admissibility. There are initialled by the Judge in
certain classes of the manner required by
documents which are Order XIII, Rule 4 and
wholly inadmissible in marked with an Exhibit
evidence for certain number. Documents
purpose owing to defects produced by the plaintiff
such as want of may be conveniently
registration, etc. There are marked as Ex. P.1, Ex. P.2,
others in which the defect etc., - while those produced
can be cured, e.g., by by the defendant as Ex. D1,
payment of penalty in the D.2, D.3, etc. To ensure
case of certain unstamped strict compliance with the
or insufficiently stamped provisions or Order XIII,
documents." Rule 4 (...the importance of
which has been emphasized
(Emphasis supplied) by their Lordships of the
Privy Council, on more than
17. Rule 11 is about the
one occasion each Civil
mode of proof. It says that
Court has been supplied
the general rule is that the
with a rubber stamp in the
document should be proved
following form:
by primary evidence i.e.
document itself should be Suit No......of .....19.....
produced in original and Title .. plaintiff .....
proved. If secondary versus .... Defendant
evidence is permitted, the Produced by ..... On
court should see that the the ..... day of ..... 19.....
conditions under which Nature of document.....

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

June 22, 2022 Page
Stamp duty paid Rs. ...is (is which are not admitted in
not) correct. Admitted as evidence, the documents
Exhibit No...... On the ..... which are required to be
day of ..... 19..... placed in strong cover, the
consequences of not
Judge properly admitting
documents etc. However
The entries in the above Rule 18 which has
form should be filed in at relevance to the
the time when the controversy raised is
document is admitted in necessary to be noticed. It
evidence under the is as follows:-
signature of the Judge. This
precaution is necessary to "It is the duty of the Court,
prevent any substitution or before hearing arguments,
tampering with the finally to revise the record
document. Details as to the which is to form the basis
nature of the document and of its judgment and to see
the stamp duty paid upon it that it contains all that has
are required to be entered been formally admitted in
in order that Courts may evidence and nothing else.
not neglect he duties Any papers still found with
imposed on them by the file, which have not
Section 33 of the Indian been admitted in evidence,
Stamp Act, 1899. District should be returned to the
Judges should see that all parties.
Court subordinate to them
are supplied with these Appellate Courts should
stamps. examine the records of
cases coming before them
The above rule also applies on appeal with a view to
to documents produced satisfying themselves that
during the course of an subordinate Courts have
enquiry made on remand complied with the
by an appellate court. provisions of the law and
instructions of the High
The endorsement and Court on the subject, and
stamp will show that the should take serious notice
document is proved. It is to of the matter when it
be remembered that the appears that any Court has
word "proved" used in the failed to do so."
context here means "that
judicial evidence has been (Emphasis supplied)
led about it", and does not
imply "proof" in an absolute 19. A careful reading of
sense." these rules showed that the
trial court was duty bound
18. There are other rules to consider the question of
also which deal with how admissibility and the proof
the endorsement is to be of the document which
made at the documents were tendered or sought to

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

June 22, 2022 Page |
be proved by judicial 21. The Division Bench in
evidence promptly and not this case clearly laid
defer this decision as to the emphasis for deciding the
admissibility or mode of question whether document
proof, if objection raised, is admitted or rejected
till the final arguments are when document is tendered
heard. At the stage of final in evidence and is sought
hearing no document to be proved by judicial
should remain on file which evidence.
has not been admitted to
evidence. Rule 10 and 18 22. This question was dealt
reproduced above clearly with by the Supreme Court
enjoins on a court that in a slightly different
question of admissibility context in Javer Chand and
should not be deferred but Ors. v. Pukhraj Surana,
should be decided MANU/SC/0036/1961 :
immediately as and when it [1962]2SCR333 . The Apex
is raised and should be Court was dealing with a
decided before the date of question raised as to the
hearing of final arguments. admissibility of document
on the ground that it has
20. In Baldeo Sahai v. Ram not been stamped or has
Chander and Ors. AIR not been properly stamped
(1931) Lah 546 it was held: and the impact of Section
36 of Stamp Act. It was
"There are two stages observed:
relating to documents. One
is the stage when all the "....Where a question as to
documents on which the the admissibility of a
parties rely are filed by document is raised on the
them in Court. The next ground that it has not been
stage is when the stamped, or has not been
documents are proved and properly stamped it has to
formally tendered in be decided then and there
evidence. It is at this later when the document is
stage that the Court has to tendered in evidence. Once
decide whether they should the Court rightly or
be admitted or rejected. If wrongly, decides to admit
they are admitted and the document in evidence,
proved then the seal of the so far as the parties are
Court is put on them giving concerned the matter is
certain details laid down by closed. Section 35 is in the
law, otherwise the nature of a penal provision
documents are returned to and has far-reaching
the party who produced effects. Parties to a
them with an endorsement litigation, where such a
therein to that effect." controversy is raised, have
to be circumspect and the
(emphasis supplied) party challenging the
admissibility of the
document has to be alert to

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

June 22, 2022 Page |
see that the document is of exhibit at a later stage
not admitted in evidence by was not challenged and it
the Court. The Court has to had become final. The
judicially determine the question whether the
matter as soon as the document is admissible in
document is tendered in evidence or it has been
evidence and before it is proved or not and required
marked as an exhibit in the to be put an exhibit mark
case..... It is not, may be raised by the party
Therefore, one of those at any time after the
cases where a document document has been
has been advertently tendered and judicial
admitted, without the Court evidence to prove it has
applying its mind to the been led. In fact, this
question of its admissibility. situation will not arise if
Once a document has been this matter is dealt with
marked as an exhibit in the and it is disposed of by the
case and the trial has trial court promptly. In
proceeded all along on the certain cases where the
footing that the document situation so warranted,
was an exhibit in the case indeed, the question may
and has been used by the be deferred to be
parties in examination and considered at the final
cross-examination of their stage and or when the
witnesses, Section 36 of parties so request the
the Stamp Act comes into court.
operation. Once a
document has been 24. The question of
admitted in evidence, as admissibility of the
aforesaid, it is not open document has to be
either to the Trial Court decided at the stage when
itself or to a Court of the document is formally
Appeal or revision to go tendered in evidence and
behind that order. Such an proved. Deferring a
order is not one of those decision on the question of
judicial orders which are admissibility of the
liable to be reviewed or document and making it
revised by the same Court part of the evidence by
or a Court of superior marking exhibit mark on it
jurisdiction." may lead to complication
and in many cases result in
23. The argument of the grave injustice to the party,
counsel for the respondent who tenders the document.
is that the observations of If the question of
the learned Civil Judge admissibility of the
which were made during document and making it
the recording of the part of the evidence by
statement of PW-3 Geeta marking exhibit mark on it
Rohtagi for deferring the may lead to complication
consideration of and in many cases result in
admissibility and marking grave injustice to the party,
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
June 22, 2022 Page |
who tenders the document. the duplicate copy of the
If the question of certificate No. 3/68/9364 of
admissibility of the the post office dated 23rd
document is deferred to be March, 1994 marked as PW
decided at the time of 1/9 certifying that the
hearing of final arguments letter sent vide postal
in many case a party may receipt No. 4564 dated
be deprived of an 13.12.1993 was not
opportunity to cure a received back and was duly
curable defect or supply the delivered, the method and
deficiency. It is for this very manner of proof was
reason that the High Court objected to by learned
Rules and Order discussed Counsel for the
above lay emphasis on defendant/respondent. The
prompt disposal of the objection was not decided
objection raised to the by the Trial Court
admissibility of the immediately. The objection
document and mode of with regard to the proof of
proof. It may work great such vital documents could
injustice in some cases if not and ought not to have
left undecided till the been kept pending. Had the
arguments are heard for objection been decided by
disposal of the suit. The the Trial Court at an early
objection to the stage of the proceedings,
admissibility and the proof the plaintiff-appellant might
of the document should have taken recourse to
ordinarily be not kept remedial measures for
pending and this should be proving the said document
decided promptly as and in accordance with law.
when they are raised, Even appellants did not ask
particularly if raised during that the objection with
the recording of the regard to proof be decided
evidence of a witness who in the first instance.
is called to prove it. But the Keeping the objections
objection certainly be pending and deciding the
disposed of before the date same only at the time of
is fixed for hearing of final delivering final judgment,
arguments. The view taken was not appropriate. Such
by this Court finds support a practice has to be
from the judgment of a depreciated.
Division Bench of this court
reported as Sunder Bala 25. Having regard to the
and Anr. v. Sandeep Foam above discussion and the
Industries Pvt. Ltd. judgment of the Division
MANU/DE/0848/2000 : Bench cited above. I am of
AIR2000Delhi300 :- the considered view that
the learned Civil Judge
"before we part with the committed material
judgment we would like to irregularity in the exercise
observe that when of jurisdiction in not
appellants desired to prove deciding the question of
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
June 22, 2022 Page |
admissibility of the
document marked 'X' and
'Y' and of marking of
exhibit mark on them
immediately when the
dispute was raised or after
at least the application was
moved by the petitioner
making this request.

26. For the reason stated

above, the petition is
allowed. The order of the
trial court by which it has
deferred the consideration
of the question of
admissibility of the
documents and marking of
exhibit on the documents
marked 'X' and marked 'Y'
to the stage of final
argument is set aside. The
trial court is directed to
consider this question at an
early date. The filing of
power of attorney of the
respondent dated
31.7.1998 is allowed
subject to payment of Rs.
1000/- as costs. But in the
circumstances of the case,
the parties are left to bear
their own costs.

© Manupatra Information
Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

June 22, 2022 Page |