Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 63 (CHH)

Santosh Kumar Gupta v. Jay Prakash Agarwal

2002-08-14

P.C.NAIK

body2002
ORDER P.C. Naik, J. 1. This revision by the defendant is directed against the order dated 20-2-2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Raigarh in Civil Suit No, 83-A/2002, rejecting petitioners' application to decide the question of the admissibility of certain documents adduced by the plaintiff during the course of his examination before the suit is disposed of. 2. During his examination-in-chief, certain documents were produced by the plaintiff when they were sought to be brought on record, objection regarding the admissibility of these documents was raised. The Court put exhibit marks on the documents with an endorsement and recorded that the objection/question of admissibility shall be decided at the time of passing of the judgment. Aggrieved therewith the petitioners moved an application with a prayer to consider the question of admissibility at the stage of objection. The rejection of this application has given rise to this revision petition. 3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the objections are required to be considered and decided when they are raised. On the other hand, it is the contention of respondent that as these documents have been taken on record and marked subject to objection no error can said to have been committed by the Court because the objection of the defendant cannot be said to have been over-ruled. 4. Having heard learned Counsel and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in this revision. 5. It is no doubt true that when the objection regarding question of admissibility is raised, the Trial Court is required to apply its mind to the objection raised and to decide the objection in accordance with law. But, as it has been observed by the Apex Court in Ram Rattan (dead) by legal representatives v. Bajrang Lal and Ors. (1978 SC1393) tendency sometimes is to postpone the decision to avoid interruption in the process of recording evidence and, therefore, a very convenient device is resorted to, of marking the document in evidence subject to objection. This is exactly what the Court has done in the case at hand which respect to documents, which have been marked as Exs. P-1-C, P-3, P-7, P-9, P-10, P-11, P-12, P-13 and P-14. This is exactly what the Court has done in the case at hand which respect to documents, which have been marked as Exs. P-1-C, P-3, P-7, P-9, P-10, P-11, P-12, P-13 and P-14. Since an objection was raised when the documents were sought to be tendered in evidence and they have been marked as exhibits subject to objection, which is to be decided at the stage of final disposal, it cannot be said nor would it mean that the objection raised has been over-ruled. It means that the objection regarding the admissibility of the document has merely been postponed. It, therefore, follows that at subsequent stage before the suit is finally disposed of, it would nonetheless be obligatory for the Court, to decide the objection regarding admissibility of the documents, which were marked subject to objection. Since in the case at hand the documents have been exhibited subject to objection the conditional exhibiting of these documents will not prejudice the defendant in any way. 6. In the above view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Court has committed any error so as to warrant any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, no interference is called for in this revision. However, it is directed that the Trial Court shall at a stage before the final disposal of the suit, decide the objections raised by the defendant regarding the admissibility of the documents. If it over-rules the objection, then naturally the said documents are taken to be proved and form a part of the record for being considered as part of the evidence. However, if the objection is upheld, they shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained in Rules 6 and 7 (2) of Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the Court shall proceed to dispose of the suit on its own merits and in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations this revision stands disposed of.