Ramesh Singh Jhaj vs P.S.B. Housing Finance Limited

K. Kannan, J.—The revision is against an order rejecting a plea for de-exhibiting some documents which were received in evidence. The suit has been filed for recovery of some money and had been held up for various reasons for more than 7 years. When the documents were exhibited through a witness whom the plaintiff examined and the trial progressed to the further stage, the application has been moved by the defendant taking up two objections: (i) the documents had been produced after nearly 7 years after the institution of the suit which ought not to have been received; (ii) the documents had not been proved in accordance with law. The documents which have been relied on by the plaintiff and which are exhibited as evidence are said to be letters written by the defendant himself. The contention is that these letters were not written by the defendant and they ought not have been exhibited. A document which the plaintiff contends is authored by the adversary, the proof can be only by a person to whom the letter is addressed and if the document is produced by the party through a witness whom the plaintiff has examined as supporting his cause and the contention of the defendant is that it is not his document, the only method to discredit the document is to cross-examine the witness and elicit that it was not written by him and the witness had no manner of knowing that it was written only by him. The mere exhibition of a document does not amount to proof of the same. If, therefore, the defendant was making an objection with reference to the documents as not proved in accordance with law, it was a matter which was best elicited in the trial in the cross-examination and could not have been a ground for de-exhibiting the document. The procedure adopted by the defendant was frivolous and a deliberate attempt to delay the process of trial.

If the trial Court was holding that the document shall be taken as evidence and his objection with reference to the mode of proof would be a matter which will be considered at the time of passing of judgment, it was again resorting to a procedure which was most exigent and it was trying to dispel a practice which is frequently adopted by parties to hold up trials making up several objections regarding the admissibility of the document. This issue has been adverted by the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, . where dealing with the admissibility of document, the Court has observed that practice of holding up trial for rendering adjudication of admissibility of document must stop. The objection could be only in one situation, viz.; when the document is not stamped and the document cannot be received in evidence at all in terms of the interdict u/s 35 of the Stamp Act. Every other objection relating to the admissibility, if the court is not able to immediately take a decision and defers it for adjudication at the time of argument, it was perfectly justified and accords with the observations of the Supreme Court in the above case. This is what has been done by the Court below.

Learned counsel refers to me two decisions. First, is the decision of this Court in Girdhari Lal Vs. Ritesh Mahajan and Another, where the Court was holding that if an objection is raised by other party with regard to exhibition of documents, the Court is obliged to first decide the question of admissibility of the documents before making endorsement thereon. I state with respect that it is an archaic approach to admissibility of document and out of sync with the judgment and approach adopted by the Supreme Court in this regard referred in the decision above. Yet another judgment relied on by the counsel is the decision of the Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Another, The Court was considering the admissibility of document in relation to entries in the books made by person who has died and adverting to document, which is exhibited, the Court observed that a document which is not admissible in evidence but brought on record has to be excluded from consideration. The Court was actually outlining the procedure that a document included in evidence ought not to be taken as proof and it will be a matter of adjudication by a judge at the appropriate time with judicial consideration. This was surely for the defendant to contend that the evidence was not capable of being relied on by the plaintiff and that no relief could be granted and if the Court was, therefore, allowing for the party to raise his objection at the time of arguments it has not done anything which was against the provisions of the law. The revision petition has been filed on absolutely frivolous grounds and in my view is wholly vexatious and an attempt to stall further proceedings. I dismiss the civil revision with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/- against the petitioner as payable to the respondent.