Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 488 (MAD)

K. C. Ekanathan v. E. Pushpalatha

2009-02-10

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- Heard both sides. .2. The nitty gritty, the warp and woof of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: .The petitioner/ respondent herein filed HMOP No.79 of 2002 for restitution of conjugal rights against the revision petitioner. Whereas the revision petitioner herein resisted the said HMOP on the ground that there was no marriage at all which took place between them. Evidence was adduced on both sides during enquiry. Thereafter, it appears that I.A.No.180 of 2007 was filed for recalling PW1 so as to mark the certified copy of the Marriage extract; Whereupon the respondent/revision petitioner herein objected to it. However, the lower Court passed the impugned order dated 29.03.2007 with the observation that the said document could be marked through PW1 and if the revision petitioner is having any objection, he could summon the Sub Registrar and enlighten the Court relating to the alleged falsity of the Marriage Registration Certificate. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the present civil revision petition has been focussed on various grounds among others. .3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that there was no marriage at all which took place between the revision petitioner and the respondent herein. He would further submit that when the revision petitioner challenges the very Certificate of Marriage itself, which was sought to be marked through P.W.1, the lower court should not have passed such an order. 4. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent herein advanced her argument in support of the order passed by the learned Judge. 5. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the Honble Apex Court judgment reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1158 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and another). An excerpt from it would run thus: "13. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.) 14. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence-taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses." It is explicitly clear from the judgment of the Honble Apex Court that whenever a document is sought to be marked, it is open for the other side to object to it. Whereupon that objection should be recorded by the lower Court reserving its power to decide on it while disposing of the matter itself and no interim order thereon is required to be passed and only in respect of the challenge relating to deficiency in paying stamp duty on a document, orders should be passed as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act immediately. In this case, the Certificate of Marriage was sought to be marked. In my opinion, the said document is coming within the definition of public document as contemplated under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and it could be marked through PW1 subject to the objection of the revision petitioner, which could be decided along with the main matter. In this case, the Certificate of Marriage was sought to be marked. In my opinion, the said document is coming within the definition of public document as contemplated under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and it could be marked through PW1 subject to the objection of the revision petitioner, which could be decided along with the main matter. As correctly pointed out by the lower Court, if at all the revision petitioner is having any grievance about the genuineness of the very Registration of marriage itself, it is open for him to summon the Sub Registrar concerned and enlighten the Court on this aspect. 6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.