Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

                                                                     MSR,J
                                ::8::                    C.R.P.Nos.457 and
                                                               604 of 2019.

19. Petitioner filed on 22-11-2018, I.A.No.317 of 2018 under Order 13 Rule 3 C.P.C. for de-exhibiting the agreement of sale dt.23-06-2004.

20. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, he contended that the Court had marked the said agreement of sale dt.23-056-2004 as Ex.A-5 subject to objection and the respondent was also partly cross-examined; that Ex.A-5 was inadmissible in evidence as per the Evidence Act, 1872; that P.W.1 died in the meantime before the petitioner could conclude the cross-examination; and so the document requires to be de-exhibited since it is a manipulated and a created document.

21. Counter-affidavit was filed by respondents, who are L.Rs. of the deceased sole plaintiff, opposing the said application. They contended that Ex.A-5 was marked subject to objections, and what type of objections can be raised is a matter to be looked into only at the time of arguments and it cannot be de-exhibited, once it has been marked. It is also contended that petitioner had waived the formal proof of Ex.A-5 and had acquiesced in it's marking.

22. Though it observed that Ex.A-5 was marked subject to objection that the document did not fulfill conditions under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and also as C.R.P. was preferred against the MSR,J ::9:: C.R.P.Nos.457 and 604 of 2019.

26. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that applications for de-exhibition of documents are not maintainable.

27. This plea is without any merit because of Or.XIII Rule 3 CPC which states:

"3. Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents:- The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection."

MSR,J ::10:: C.R.P.Nos.457 and 604 of 2019.

37. Since the legal position has been elaborately discussed R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder (11 supra) and in Shalimar Chemical Works Limited (8 supra), I deem it appropriate to follow the said decisions instead of K.Mallesh (13 supra) and Bipin Shantilal Panchal (15 supra).

38. In view of the said decisions, I hold that the application for de-exhibiting Ex.A5 agreement of sale dt.23-6-2004 was rightly filed by petitioner and the Court below erred in dismissing it because objection to receipt of the said document was raised by the petitioner and without deciding it, the Court proceeded to receive and admit it in (2006) 6 ALD 176 (DB) (2000) 3 ALD 134 (DB) MSR,J ::16:: C.R.P.Nos.457 and 604 of 2019.