Devi Sahai vs Triloch Pathak

K. Kannan, J—The attempt to de-exhibit some documents which were exhibited with the affidavit tendered by the party in lieu of chief examination was rejected. The revision petitioner has a grievance that the court is bound to consider the objection regarding the admissibility and the court is not justified in rejecting the plea. The counsel would refer me to Order 18 Rule 4(4) CPC which provides for a procedure to be followed when an objection is taken at the time of production of evidence before a Commissioner. This objection would be meaningless, for, Order 18 Rule 4(4) CPC operates as a fetter for decision only to a Commissioner and not to a court for the obvious reason that the Commissioner is expected to perform only a ministerial act and not a judicial performance of taking a decision of whether a document is admissible or not. We have to come by new practices of not stalling proceedings at the trial when the document is exhibited as evidence. The procedure was laid down by the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, AIR 2001 SC 1158 : (2001) CriLJ 1254 : (2001) 74 ECC 287 : (2001) 134 ELT 611 : (2001) 3 JT 120 : (2001) 2 SCALE 167 : (2002) 10 SCC 529(1) : (2001) 2 SCR 29 : (2001) 1 UJ 573 : (2001) AIRSCW 841 : (2001) 2 Supreme 65 which principle was applied by this court in the decision in Dr. S.P. Antra v. Satbir Singh, 2010 (5) R.C.R. (Civil) 350 . There are also decisions of the Supreme Court itself that mere exhibition of a document does not dispense with requirement of proof or establishing its relevance at a later point of time. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sait Tarajee Khimchand and Others Vs. Yelamarti Satyam alias Satteyya and Others, AIR 1971 SC 1865 : (1972) 4 SCC 562 : (1971) 3 UJ 644 and a still later judgment of Supreme Court in L.I.C. of India and Another Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 125 FLR 325 : (2010) 3 JT 53 : (2010) 2 SCALE 121 : (2010) 4 SCC 491 : (2010) 1 SCC(L&S) 1072 : (2010) 3 SCR 438 : (2011) 1 SLJ 201 : (2011) 2 SLR 792 : (2010) 3 UJ 1354 that a document exhibited subject to a challenge could be considered by the court about its admissibility or relevance subsequently and mere exhibition of a document will not take away the right of a party to object to its relevance nor will it relieve the court of its obligation to decide on its relevance if such a point is raised at the time of arguments. I am informed that cross-examination has already complete and the petitioner will have his objections in turn of his arguments about the admissibility or its relevance and the court shall consider the same. 10. The order is maintained subject to the observations made by this court and the civil revision is dismissed.