Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1079 (RAJ)

Ramesh Chand v. Kailash Chand Goyal

2022-04-04

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2022
ORDER 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitionerdefendant, challenging the order dated 18.02.2015, passed by the Civil Court where application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 CPC has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of the written statement by petitioner, an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC was filed by the respondents for production of the alleged family settlement of which mention was made in the additional plea of the written statement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said application filed by the respondents was allowed and thereafter an application under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC was filed by the respondents, wherein prayer was made that the alleged family settlement, said to be executed between the parties, was inadmissible in evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that declaring the said family settlement as inadmissible is not a correct proposition of law, as understood by the court below. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the direction for production of a document was given and same was carried out by the party concerned, the proper stage of raising any objection about admissibility of that document, should have been when such document was to be tendered as a piece of evidence by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Apex Court in the case of R.V.E. Venkatchala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr., reported in 2003 SAR (Civil) 929, has laid down the proposition that the objection to the admissibility of the documents in evidence must be classified in two classes i.e. No.(i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence and No.(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. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the said judgment submitted that ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of document should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Mr. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the said judgment submitted that ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of document should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Mr. R.K. Daga submitted that the Order 13 Rule 3 CPC provides for rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents, at any stage of the suit and as such the court below has not committed any illegality in passing the order. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the broad power conferred to the Civil Court to consider the relevancy or admissibility of a document, should be exercised so that the Court's time may not be wasted subsequently and as such the word 'at any stage' has been used in Order 13 Rule 3 CPC. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no interference is required by this Court. 11. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. This Court finds that on production of a document, if the petitioner has produced any document (family settlement) and same is yet to be tendered as a piece of evidence at the appropriate stage, it will be for the parties to raise objection about the admissibility, when such document is tendered. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said proposition has already been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of R.V.E. Venkatchala Gounder (supra). 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Mr. R.K. Daga submitted that if this Court is setting-aside the order passed by the court below, at least liberty may be granted to raise objections when the said document may be tendered in evidence by the petitioner. 15. This Court accordingly set-aside the order dated 18.02.2015 and further permits the parties to raise their appropriate objections at the relevant time i.e. as and when such document is tendered for the purpose of admissibility in evidence. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.