Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1407 (PNJ)

Banarsi Dass v. Raj Kumari

2013-10-25

S.P.BANGARH

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. S.P. Bangarh, J. (Oral):- Civil Suit no. 209 of 2013 was filed by Raj Kumari (respondent No.1) before the trial Court on 31.05.2013 for declaration with joint possession and permanent injunction. When respondent No.1 (plaintiff) was examined by the Local Commissioner as PW-2, she placed on record Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 i.e. attested copies of neonda bahis. The petitioner herein, filed application (copy Annexure P-1) before the trial Court that the further evidence of PW- 2 (Raj Kumari) be recorded by the Court itself and the exhibited documents, which were no per se admissible may be marked. This application was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 24.09.2013 (Annexure P-2). 2. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has come up in this revision with prayer for acceptance, thereof and for setting aside the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the further evidence of PW-2 (Raj Kumari) may be recorded by the Commissioner, but the documents Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 should be either marked or should be deemed to have been exhibited subject to the objection and that objection may be kept open to be decided by the trial Court at the time of hearing the final arguments in the Suit. 4. In order to avoid delay in disposal of the suit, notice of this petition to the respondents is dispensed with. However, he can approach this Court for setting aside this order, if aggrieved, thereby. 5. The documents Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 have been tendered in the statement of PW-2 (Raj Kumari). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that PW-2 is not the author of these documents, but due to inadvertence the counsel appearing for the petitioner could not raise objection to exhibiting of these documents. So, these documents shall be deemed to have been objected to by the petitioner, for exhibiting these documents and this objection of the petitioner shall remain open for adjudication, thereof, by the trial Court at the time of hearing final arguments. 7. So, these documents shall be deemed to have been objected to by the petitioner, for exhibiting these documents and this objection of the petitioner shall remain open for adjudication, thereof, by the trial Court at the time of hearing final arguments. 7. The trial Court referred to Bipin Shanti Lal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and another; 2001 (3) SCC 1 ; passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein, it was held that 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. 8. There is no illegality in adopting such approach. 9. In the case in hand, the counsel for the petitioner could not raise objection to the exhibiting of documents Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Since PW-2 (Raj Kumari) is not the author of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, these documents shall be deemed to be exhibited subject to objection of the petitioner, which shall be decided by the trial Court at the last stage in the final judgment. 10. With this modification in the impugned order, the civil revision petition stands disposed of.