Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 614 (MP)

Madanlal v. Ramesh Chandra Mahadik

2016-07-26

ALOK ARADHE

body2016
ORDER 1. With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders dated 16.12.2010 and 28.1.2011 so far they pertain to marking of the exhibit on the photocopy of the cheque as well as application for compromise. 3. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground of section 12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The defendants have filed their written statement and have contested the suit. After framing of the issues, at the stage of evidence respondent / plaintiff filed an application under sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 16.12.2010 and documents namely photocopy of the cheque as well as application for compromise were permitted to be marked as exhibit. Thereupon, the petitioner raised an objection that the aforesaid documents cannot be marked as exhibit even then the aforesaid documents were permitted to be marked as exhibit by the trial Court vide impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents in question namely photocopy of the cheque and the application for compromise are not public documents and therefore, they are not per se admissible in evidence and they are required to be proved before marking the same as exhibit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders passed by the trial Court and placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Biswambhar Singh v. State of Orissa [1954 AIR SC 139]. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The decision of Supreme Court in Biswambhar Singh (supra), has no application in the fact situation of this case as the same deals with section 65 of the Evidence Act. The question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the documents in question namely copy of the cheque and application for compromise can be permitted to be marked as exhibit without proving the same. 6. The aforesaid documents are not public documents within the provision of section 74 of the Evidence Act and therefore, the same have to be proved. Without proving the same, the trial Court grossly erred in permitting the plaintiff to mark the aforesaid documents as exhibit. 6. The aforesaid documents are not public documents within the provision of section 74 of the Evidence Act and therefore, the same have to be proved. Without proving the same, the trial Court grossly erred in permitting the plaintiff to mark the aforesaid documents as exhibit. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record. The impugned orders permitting the plaintiff to mark the aforesaid documents as exhibit, are hereby quashed. The trial Court is directed to require the plaintiff to prove the aforesaid documents and thereafter, the same shall be marked as exhibit, if required. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court by fax. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stand disposed of. D. D. Bansal for petitioner; Vinod Bhargava for respondents.