Admissibility of a document when can be decided - Marking of a document when can be done ?

Whether the document can be marked for identification purpose ?
i) A list of documents should be filed along with the plaint or written statement and if the parties want to file document subsequently, they have to take leave of the Court.
ii) The documents, which are marked, does not dispense with their proof.
iii) There is a difference between marking of a document and admitting the same in evidence.
iv) As held by the Supreme Court in R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder (supra), the objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence can be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. When the objection relates to mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. This later objection is an objection relating to the irregularity or insufficiency.
v) In order to avoid delay in the trial of the suit, the Court can tentatively mark a document and examine its admissibility and the objection raised to it along with the pronouncement of judgment.
Since, in the instant case, the order of the trial Court speaks of receiving of the document only without passing a judicial order on its admissibility, the defendant can as well raise his objection as to its admissibility at a later stage, and the trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. The objection relating to relevancy of the document need not be decided at the time of marking the document. It relates to admissibility and can be raised by the defendant at a later stage and should be decided by the Court at the time of pronouncement of judgment. Though the plaintiff has not sought leave of the Court while filing the list of documents on 30.04.2013, subsequent to the filing of the plaint, this Court considers the said defect as an irregularity and not an illegality. Since Exs.A6 to A10 were already marked from out of the list of documents, it is assumed that the trial Court has permitted such filing of the documents. However, the trial Court, hereafter, should scrupulously follow the provisions of CPC while receiving and marking the documents.-2015 Telagana & A.P. msklawreports


Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.