ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Aditya Singh holding brief of Sri Devansh Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for proposed respondent. 2. This appeal under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") has arisen from judgment and decree dated 9.3.2014 passed by Sri Vigyan Ram Mishra, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Varanasi in Original Suit No. 801 of 1995. 3. The question raised in this appeal is, whether, suit instituted by the appellant for refund of money/recovery of money was within limitation. Admittedly, loan was advanced on 04.10.1989 while suit was filed by plaintiff dated 22.08.1995. Learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on an alleged acknowledgement dated 27.09.1992, which is said to have been executed by Purshottam defendant-respondent but it could not dispute that aforesaid document was never admitted as evidence and on the contrary it was rejected by court below. 4. Points for determination arisen in this appeal are: (i) Whether alleged acknowledgment dated 27.09.1992, which was not admitted as evidence could be treated to be an evidence for the purpose of deciding issue of limitation; (ii) Whether suit in question was barred by limitation as held by Court below. 5. In order to answer question no. 1, we find that a detailed procedure has been provided in Code of Civil Procedure as also General Rules (Civil), 1957 (hereinafter referred to as GR (C) 1957) applicable to subordinate Courts in State of U.P. with respect of the procedure to be followed in Civil Matters for exhibiting documentary evidence. 6. Procedure of filing suits and manner in which the same are to be tried and further provisions of appeal, revision etc. are broadly governed by CPC, a statute enacted by Central Legislation. Since District Courts are subordinate to High Court and procedural aspects can also be monitored by High Court under Section 122 C.P.C. hence power has also been given to High Court to frame Rules regulating procedure of Civil Courts subject to superintendence and by such rules annul, alter or add to all or any of the rules in the first schedule which contains various provisions, divided in 52 orders. 7. In exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 122 CPC, GR (C) 1957 have been notified in super-session of all existing Rules on the subject. 7. In exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 122 CPC, GR (C) 1957 have been notified in super-session of all existing Rules on the subject. These Rules have 28 Chapters dealing with different aspects of procedure to be followed not only in trial of civil suits etc. but also tell subordinate Courts, manner of maintenance of record of various proceedings and other administrative aspects. 8. Chapter III is one of the most important Chapter which deals with procedure of institution of suit, as to how it shall proceed. It also deals with appeals in general. Chapter III is sub-divided in nine parts, i.e. from (A) to (I). 9. Part (A) deals with parties to the proceedings; (B) with applications and pleadings; (C) with Documents; (D) Commissions; (E) Affidavits; (F) Adjournments; (G) Hearing of suit; (H) Transfer or withdrawal of cases and (I) Judgment and decree. 10. For the purpose of present matter, we are confining our discussion with respect to documents which were filed in Trial Court, as to how they would have dealt with, proceeded and exhibited for the purpose of deciding suit. Relevant rules in this regard are Rules 40 to 64 in Part C, Chapter III and the same have to be read with Order XIII CPC. 11. Order XIII deals with production, impounding and return of documents. Rule 1 thereof as it stands today, substituted by CPC Amendment Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act, 1999") w. e. f. 01.07.2002. Earlier Rule 1 reads as under:- "1. Documentary evidence to be produced at or before the settlement of issues: (1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at or before the settlement of issues all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced. (2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced: Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs. " 12. The substituted Rule 1 which is effective from 01.07.2002, reads as under: "1. (2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced: Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs. " 12. The substituted Rule 1 which is effective from 01.07.2002, reads as under: "1. Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues:- (1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with the plaint or written statement. (2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced: Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs. (3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents:- (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party. (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory." 13. This is consistent with Order VII Rule 14 in respect of documents of plaintiff and Order VIII Rule 1A in respect of documents of defendants. Both these rules have also undergone amendment by substitution and Order VII Rule 14 and Order VIII Rule 1A, as inserted by Amendment Act, 1999, read as under:- Order VII, Rule 14 before Amendment "Rule 14 – Production of document on which plaintiff sues: (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. List of other documents. (2) Where he relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint." Order VII, Rule 14 after Amendment "14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies:- (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such documents not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document:- (a) produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses. (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory." Order VIII Rule 1A (inserted by Amendment Act, 1999) "1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him:- (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set off or counter claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents:- (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses. (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory." 14. Order XIII Rule 1 now creates an obligation upon parties or their pleader to produce original documents on or before settlement of Issues. Order XIII Rule 2 earlier provided effect of non-production of documents but now by Amendment Act, 1999 it has been omitted. If primary evidence i.e. original document is not available and party intends to lead secondary evidence, then all conditions provided in Evidence Act have to be satisfied. Order XIII Rule 2 earlier provided effect of non-production of documents but now by Amendment Act, 1999 it has been omitted. If primary evidence i.e. original document is not available and party intends to lead secondary evidence, then all conditions provided in Evidence Act have to be satisfied. Rule 3 permits a Court to reject a document at any stage of the suit which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible after recording grounds of such rejection. Rule 4 contemplates endorsement on the documents admitted in evidence and it has to be done by Court since such endorsement has to be signed or initialed by Presiding Officer of the Court. It reads as under:- "4. Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence - (1) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-rule, there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the Suit the following particulars, namely:- (a) the number and title of the suit. (b) the name of the person producing the document. (c) the date on which it was produced. (d) a statement of its having been so admitted. The endorsement shall be signed or Initialed by the judge. (2) Where a document so admitted is an entry in a book, account or record, and a copy thereof has been substituted for the original under the next following rule, the particulars aforesaid shall be endorsed on the copy and the endorsement thereon shall be signed or initialed by the Judge." 15. Order XIII Rule 5 provides for endorsement on copies of admitted entries in books, accounts and records. Rule 6 talks of endorsement of documents rejected as inadmissible. The Rules read as under:- "5. Endorsements on copies of admitted entries in books, accounts and records:- (1) Save in so far as otherwise provided by the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (XVIII of 1891), where a document admitted in evidence in the suit is an entry in a letter book or a shop book or other account in current use, the party on whose behalf the book or account is produced may furnish a copy of the entry. (2) Where such a document is an entry in a public record produced from a public office or by a public officer, or an entry in a book or account belonging to a person other than a party on whose behalf the book or account is produced, the Court may require a copy of the entry to be furnished:- (a) where the record, book or account is produced on behalf of a party, then by that party. (b) where the record, book or account is produced in obedience to an Order of the Court acting of its own motion, then by either or any party. (3) Where a copy of an entry is furnished under the foregoing provisions of this rule, the Court shall, after causing the copy to be examined, compared and certified in manner mentioned in rule 17 of Order VII, mark the entry and cause the book, account or record in which its occurs to be returned to the person producing it." "6. Endorsements on documents rejected as inadmissible in evidence - Where a document relied on as evidence by either party is considered by the Court to be inadmissible in evidence, there shall be endorsed there or the particulars mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 4, sub-rule (1), together with a statement of its having been rejected, and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Judge." 16. Order XIII Rule 7 CPC provides that documents which are admitted in evidence shall form part of record of suit. The documents not admitted in evidence shall not form part of record and shall be returned to the persons respectively producing them. 17. Order XIII Rule 8 CPC empowers Court to impound a document and keep in the custody of officer of Court, if it sees sufficient cause, for such period and subject to such conditions, as Court thinks fit. 18. Order XIII Rule 9 provides for return of admitted documents after suit is disposed of and, either time for filing appeal has expired or appeal has been disposed of. Proviso covers a situation where a document may be returned at any time earlier than the period provided hereinabove in certain conditions. 18. Order XIII Rule 9 provides for return of admitted documents after suit is disposed of and, either time for filing appeal has expired or appeal has been disposed of. Proviso covers a situation where a document may be returned at any time earlier than the period provided hereinabove in certain conditions. Rule 10 states that Court may, of its own motion, and discretion, upon application of any of the parties to suit, send for, either from its own records or from any other Court, record of any other suit or proceeding, and inspect the same. Conditions applicable when such order is passed on the application, are contained in sub-rule 2 of Rule 10. Sub-rule 3 declares that Rule 10 shall not enable Court to use in evidence, any document which under the law of evidence would be inadmissible in suit. Rule 11 extends provisions relating to documents to all other material objects producible as evidence. 19. In the context of Order XIII CPC, further detailed provisions have been given under GR (C) 1957. 20. Rule 40 of GR (C) 1957 specifies the persons who may produce documents in the Court and says that it may be by parties, by persons, other than parties and on requisition issued by Court. Rule 41 imposes an obligation where the documents produced by party or his witness is in a language other than Hindi, Urdu or English and says that it shall be accompanied by a correct translation of the document in Hindi, written in Devnagri script. Such translation shall bear a certificate of party's lawyer to the effect that the translation is correct. If parties are not represented by a lawyer, Court shall have the translation certificate of any person appointed by it in this behalf at the cost of the party concerned. 21. Rule 42 of GR (C) 1957 contemplates that parties desiring to produce any document in Court, shall, before producing it in any Court, obtain admission or denial, recorded on back of the document by the opposite party's lawyer. If opposite party is not represented by lawyer, Court shall get admission or denial by the party in its presence and may, for the purpose, examine the party. 22. If opposite party is not represented by lawyer, Court shall get admission or denial by the party in its presence and may, for the purpose, examine the party. 22. Rule 43 lays procedure of list of documents contemplated in Order VII Rule 14 and Order XIII Rule 1 CPC and says that such list of documents shall be in form (Part IV-71). It further says that no document when-so-ever produced, shall be received unless accompanied by the said form duly filled up. In case a document is produced by a witness or person summoned to produce documents, form shall be supplied by the parties at whose instance the document is produced. It also requires that list as well as the documents shall be immediately entered in the general index. 23. If there is any erasures or additions in the documents, other than a registered documents or certified copy, Rule 44 of GR (C) 1957 states that such document shall be accompanied by a statement clearly describing such erasure, addition or inter-alienation and signed by such party. Reference to such statement shall be made in the list form (Part IV-71) with which paper is filed. 24. Rule 45 is basically a provision for safety and convenience of perusal of documents when it is a small piece of paper or of historic value or written on both sides. It reads as under:- "45. Small documents and documents of historic value - Small documents when filed in Court shall be filed pasted on a paper equal to the size of the record, and the margin of the paper should be stitched to the file so that no part of the document is concealed by the stitching. If a document contains writing both on the front and the back, it should be kept in a separate cover, which should be stitched to the file at the proper place leaving the main document untouched. " 25. When a party requires production of a public record, Rule 46 says that application shall be submitted by such party accompanied by an affidavit showing how such party requiring record has satisfied itself that it is material to the suit and why a certified copy of document cannot be produced or will not serve the purpose. 26. " 25. When a party requires production of a public record, Rule 46 says that application shall be submitted by such party accompanied by an affidavit showing how such party requiring record has satisfied itself that it is material to the suit and why a certified copy of document cannot be produced or will not serve the purpose. 26. When a public record is ordered to be produced but its production require sanction of Head of Department, Rule 47 deals with such a situation and says as under:- "47. Documents for production of which sanction of head of department is necessary - When a Court decides that in the interests of justice it is necessary that it should have before it a document which cannot be produced without the sanction of the head of the department concerned, it shall in its order asking for such document set out as clearly as possible (a) the facts, for the proof of which the production of the document is sought; (b) the exact portion or portions of the document required as evidence of the facts sought to be proved. The Court summoning the document shall fix a date for its production, which should not be less than three weeks from the date of issue of summons." 27. Rule 48 deals with public record of different offices like Sub Registrar, Police, Municipal and District Board and Post Office and says as under:- "48. Registers from Sub-Registrar's office - (1) A summons for the production of any register or book belonging to the office of a Sub-Registrar shall be addressed to the District Registrar and not direct to the Sub-Registrar. (2) Production of documents in police custody - A summons for the production of documents in the custody of the police should be addressed to the Superintendent of Police concerned, and not to the Inspector General. (3) Production of Municipal and District Board Records - When duly authenticated and certified copies of documents in the possession of Municipal and District Boards are admissible in evidence, the Court shall not send for original records unless, after perusal of copies filed, the Court is satisfied that the production of the original is absolutely necessary. (3) Production of Municipal and District Board Records - When duly authenticated and certified copies of documents in the possession of Municipal and District Boards are admissible in evidence, the Court shall not send for original records unless, after perusal of copies filed, the Court is satisfied that the production of the original is absolutely necessary. (4) Post Office records not to be unnecessarily disclosed - When any journal or other record of a post office is produced in Court, the Court shall not permit any portion of such journal or record to be disclosed, other than the portion or portions which seem to the Court necessary for the determination of the case then before it." 28. For summoning of settlement record, procedure is prescribed in Rule 49 and reads as under:- "49. Settlement Records - When a Court requires the production of any Settlement Record in which the Settlement Officer acted in a judicial capacity, it shall be summoned in the manner provided by Order XIII, Rule 10. In other cases the procedure prescribed in Order XVI, Rule 6 shall be followed. The summons to produce such documents shall be issued to the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, who may send the document by messenger or registered post." 29. Rule 50 deals with payment of postage fee, travelling charges and other expenses for transmission or requisition of record etc. Rule 51 says that documents received by registered post, then the registered cover shall not be destroyed but shall be attached to the file of proceedings in the case to which the document is referred. 30. Then comes Rule 52 which says that all documents, must be received by the Court and must be dealt with in one or the other of three means i.e. (a) returned; (b) placed on record; and (c) impounded. 31. Thereafter Rule 53 imposes a duty upon Court to inspect documents as soon as they are produced before Court. It says that documents which are proved or admitted by party against whom they are produced in evidence, shall be marked as exhibit in the manner prescribed in Rule 57 and this fact shall be noted in the record. The document which are not proved or not admitted by parties against whom they are produced in Court, shall be kept in record pending proof and shall be rejected at the close of evidence, if not proved or admitted. The document which are not proved or not admitted by parties against whom they are produced in Court, shall be kept in record pending proof and shall be rejected at the close of evidence, if not proved or admitted. Documents that are found to be irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible in evidence shall be rejected forthwith. There is also a note under Rule 53 stating that no document unless admitted in evidence shall be marked as an exhibit. 32. Rule 54 of GR (C) 1957 clarifies that admission of genuineness is not to be confused with admission of truth of contents and reads as under: "54. Admission of genuineness not to be confused with admission of truth of contents - (1) When a certified copy of any private document is produced in Court, inquiry shall be made from the opposite party whether he admits that it is a true and correct copy of the document which he also admits, or whether it is a true and correct copy of the document which he denies, or whether it is a true and correct copy of the document the genuineness of which he admits without admitting the truth of its contents, or whether he denies the correctness of the copy as well as of the document itself. Admission of the genuineness of a document is not to be confused with the admission of the truth of its contents or with the admission that such document is relevant or sufficient to prove any alleged fact. 33. The expression which are to be used by parties while admitting or not admitting documents, is provided in Rule 55 and reads as under: "55. Proper expression about admissions of documents - Admission of a document by a party shall be indicated by the endorsement "Admitted by the plaintiff" or "Admitted by the defendant." Admission of a document in evidence by the Court shall be indicated by the endorsement "Admitted in evidence." If any question is raised as to the correctness of a copy and the correctness of its is admitted, the endorsement shall be "correctness of copy admitted". The use of the expression "Admitted as a copy" in endorsement on document is prohibited." 34. Rule 56 talks of documents filed in suits which are compromised or dismissed in default and says: "56. The use of the expression "Admitted as a copy" in endorsement on document is prohibited." 34. Rule 56 talks of documents filed in suits which are compromised or dismissed in default and says: "56. Endorsement on documents in suits compromised or dismissed for default - Documents filed in suits, which are dismissed for default or compromised, shall, before being dealt with in the manner provided in Rules 59 and 60 be endorsed with the particulars mentioned in Order XIII, Rule 4(i) and the result of the suit." 35. Rule 57 provides the manner in which marking is to be made in documents and reads as under: "57. Marking of documents - (1) Documents produced by a plaintiff and duly admitted in evidence shall be marked with a number, and documents produced by a defendant shall be marked with a number and the letter A, or, where there are more than one set of defendants by the letter A for the first set of defendants, by the letter B for the second, and so on. Where a document is produced by order of the Court and is not produced by any party, the serial number shall be prefaced by the words "Court Exhibit" or an abbreviation of the same. (2) Where a document is produced by a witness at the instance of a party, the number of the witness shall be endorsed thereon, e.g. Ex. PW-1 if it is produced by the plaintiff's first witness and Ex.A/DW-1 if it is produced by the defendant's first witness. (3) The party at whose instance a document is produced by a witness shall deposit the cost of the preparation of a certified copy of that document before it is placed on the record. The office shall then prepare a certified copy and keep it with the original document. If the witness wants to take back his document it shall be returned to him unless there are special reasons for keeping the original on the record. Provided that a certified copy shall not be necessary where the document is written in a language other than Hindi or English, and a translation has been filed as prescribed by Rule 41. (4) Every exhibit-mark shall be initialed and dated by the Judge." 36. Provided that a certified copy shall not be necessary where the document is written in a language other than Hindi or English, and a translation has been filed as prescribed by Rule 41. (4) Every exhibit-mark shall be initialed and dated by the Judge." 36. If a number of documents of same nature are admitted than the manner in which such documents are marked, is provided in Rule 58 as under: "58. Marking of documents - Where a number of documents of the same nature are admitted, as for example, a series of receipt for rent, the whole series should bear one figure or capital letter or letters, a small figure or letter in brackets being added to distinguish each paper of the series." 37. Rule 59 states that documents which are rejected as irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC or not proved, unless impounded under Order 13 Rule 8 or rendered wholly void or useless by force of decree, be returned to the person producing it or to the pleader and such person or pleader shall give a receipt for same in column 4 of list (Form Part IV-71). 38. Rules 60 and 61 of GR (C) 1957 deal with retention of impounded and certain other documents and care of impounded documents. Rule 63 talks with the manner in which documents are to be returned. Rule 64 specifically concerned with books of business and read as under: "64. Books of business - If a document be an entry in a letter book, a shop book, or other account in current use or an entry in a public record, produced from a public office or by a public officer, a copy of the entry, certified in the manner required by law, shall be substituted on the record before the book, account or record is returned, and the necessary endorsement should be made thereon, as required by Order XIII, Rule 5." 39. These are the provisions relating to procedure and have been designed to facilitate procedure for imparting justice. The procedural law is not to be dealt as a penal enactment and too technical construction thereof is not needed. These are the provisions relating to procedure and have been designed to facilitate procedure for imparting justice. The procedural law is not to be dealt as a penal enactment and too technical construction thereof is not needed. This is what has been said by Hon'ble Vivian Bose, J. in Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Another, (1955) 2 SCR 1 and we quote relevant observations as under: "Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a Penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it." 40. Having said so, it also cannot be forgotten that the procedure laid down is not meant for defiance but has to be observed. Evidence is the foundation of every case since in our system of justice, disputes are decided, whether Civil or Criminal, on the basis of evidence which may be oral or documentary. Therefore, rules dealing with procedure as to how a document will become an evidence is of great importance and such procedure must be adhered. Normal requirement under Rules is that provisions relating to endorsement of document admitted in evidence should be strictly followed. The procedure of admission of a document as an evidence is not to be termed as a mere technical aspect inasmuch as evidence is basic foundation for deciding a civil or criminal case, as the case may be, and, therefore, an evidence must be exhibited strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules, since that is the procedure consistent with principles of natural justice so that no party to the proceedings is taken by surprise or suffers on account of consideration of a material which was inadmissible in evidence or not proved or not admitted in evidence but still relied for deciding the matter as the same would render the judgment erroneous having relying on a material which is not admissible in evidence. There may be cases where though procedural aspects have been observed in substance and there may be some error which may not go to the root of the matter and that may not be taken by the superior Court, in the facts and circumstances of a given case, to hold judgment of lower Court as vitiated in law but normal rule is adherence to the procedure prescribed in rules so that no such occasion may arise. 41. In the past, on different occasions and in particular in the light of facts of those cases, deviation in process of marking of evidence or admitting of documents has been allowed to stay and has not vitiated proceedings but a close scrutiny of such matters will reveal that such occasions existed due to peculiar facts of those matters. In order to avoid injustice to one or other party Courts have not held a document inadmissible at a later stage but general law is that in order to make a document, exhibit, procedure prescribed under rules should be adhered to. 42. Even Legislature has intervened by amending Order 13 Rule 1 and now parties have to file documentary evidence in original. This is clearly with the intention to avoid any scope of filing fictitious, manufactured or otherwise vitiating documents, particularly when scientific development has made things much easier to create any kind of manipulation in a document very conveniently. Courts are under a duty that before it treat a document, evidence, it should follow the procedure strictly. Unless a document is admitted or proved as evidence and marked 'exhibit', same obviously should not be relied to decide a dispute. Marking of mere paper number and decision of a case on that basis is not correct as it leaves to guess whether case is decided on legally admissible and proved evidence or not. It may amount to render a decision on the basis of documents inadmissible in evidence. 43. In Sadik Husain Khan vs. Hashim Ali Khan and Others, (1916) 38 ILR (All) 627, Judicial Committee said: "Their Lordships, with a view of insisting on the observance of the wholesome provisions of these Statutes, will, in order to prevent injustice, be obliged in future on the hearing of Indian appeals to refuse to read or permit to be used any document not endorsed in the manner required." 44. In Secretary of State vs. Smt. Sarla Devi Chaudhrani, 1924 AIR Lahore 548 followed in Hari Singh vs. Firm Karam Chand-Kanshi Ram, 1927 AIR Lahore 115 and Imam-ud-Din and Another vs. Sri Ram Perbhu Dial, (1928) AIR Lahore 142, it was said that documents admitted on record without making endorsement prescribed by Rules cannot be regarded as having been brought on record, legally, before Court. 45. In Feroze Din and Others vs. Nawab Khan and Others, (1928) AIR Lahore 432, Court said that documents should not be endorsed until they are proved. Sometimes Court may mark a document as an exhibit without having it proved. 46. In Sait Tarajee Khimchand vs. Yelamarti Satyam alias Satteyya, (1971) AIR SC 1865, Court said that merely marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents. It was followed in Sitaram vs. Ram Charan and Others, (1995) AIR MP 134. 47. There are some exceptions. Where document was duly proved before a Commissioner appointed to take evidence and endorsed by him and it became part of record though Trial Court did not endorse it as required by it under Order 13 Rule 4, but for such document in MA Fatima and Others vs. Momin Bibi and Others, 1929 AIR (Rang) 211, it was held that such a document would be admissible in evidence and cannot be rejected for mere failure of Trial Court to endorse as exhibit. 48. This Court also in Bal Mukandji Maharaj vs. Gokaran Singh and Another, (1956) AIR Allahabad 124 observed that a document tendered in evidence which was also admitted by other side without objection should not be excluded merely because no exhibit mark was given to it. 49. In one matter, photocopies were filed and their admission in evidence was not objected by other side. Court said that any subsequent objection to admissibility of such document cannot be allowed in appeal. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 752 , Court said: "The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes - (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the made of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons; firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court." 50. The above view has been followed and reiterated in Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 423 . 51. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court." 50. The above view has been followed and reiterated in Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 423 . 51. Construing Order 13 Rule 4 CPC in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder, Court also observed: "Order 13 Rule 4 of the CPC provides for every document admitted in evidence in the suit being endorsed by or on behalf of the Court, which endorsement signed or initialed by the Judge amounts to admission of the document in evidence. An objection to the admissibility of the document should be raised before such endorsement is made and the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the question of admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend the document being endorsed as admitted or not admitted in evidence. In the latter case, the document may be returned by the Court to the person from whose custody it was produced." 52. It also expressed its agreement with the decision in Roman Catholic Mission v. The State of Madras and Another, (1966) 3 SCR 283 , taking a view that a document, not admissible in evidence though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. The above decision has been referred to recently in Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta vs. New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2015) 9 SCC 755 . 53. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder and Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. photocopies/ xerox copies were relied and admitted in evidence. Since not objected by other side before Trial Court, Court did not allow an objection regarding admissibility of such documents as evidence in subsequent proceedings in appeal before Superior Court. 54. These rules of procedure, as already said, should be followed strictly though not in a manner so as to cause any injustice to either of party and sometimes variation therein may not affect ultimate result in rendering the judgment illegal or bad in law, provided facts in that case show that no prejudice has caused to other side as appropriate opportunity for objection was not taken. Such instances should not be a rule but an exception. In general practice, an honest and serious observance of requirement of rules is expected to be followed and Trial Court should proceed in the matter, accordingly. 55. Such instances should not be a rule but an exception. In general practice, an honest and serious observance of requirement of rules is expected to be followed and Trial Court should proceed in the matter, accordingly. 55. In the present case, the acknowledgement dated 27.09.1992 was filed by the appellant but it was not exhibited and admitted as evidence and, on the contrary, rejected by Court below. It is, therefore, could not be treated to be an evidence at all and Court below has rightly ignored the said fact. We find strange on the part of the appellant in filing the aforesaid document and making a part of paper book ignoring the fact that once a document filed as evidence if rejected and not exhibited the same cannot be treated to be an evidence and could not have been made part of paper book in this appeal before this Court. In fact, Court below after rejecting the document ought to have been returned the same as provided under Rule 59 of GR (C) 1957 read with Order XIII Rule 9. 56. We also depricated the conduct of appellant in making the aforesaid document as part of paper book though Order XIII Rule 7 clearly provides that only a document which is admitted in evidence was part of record of suit and the documents not admitted in evidence shall not form part of record and shall be returned to the person producing that document. 57. In view of above, question no. (i) is answered against the appellant and in favour of respondent. 58. Now coming to question no. (ii), it cannot be disputed that suit in question having been filed in 1995 after more than five years was apparently barred by limitation and therefore, this question is also answered against the appellant. No other point has been argued. 59. Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.