challenge the admissibility of the said document. Accordingly, he sought
to de-exhibit the said document.
A counter was filed stating that the said application ... Whether the document marked as Ex.A1 can be de-
exhibited, if so to what result?
The trial Court, by its order dated
deferred at request. Later, the plaintiff filed the instant application for
de-exhibiting the said document marked as exhibit B1. The said petition was
resisted ... exclude the CC of unregistered partition deed from
evidence after de-exhibiting it, as it is not properly stamped and registered.
5. The case
filed IA No.1037 of 2001 under Section 151 CPC to de-exhibit the document marked as Ex.B2 on the ground that ... document is totally unlawful and illegal. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought to de-exhibit the said document. The defendants opposed the said application. In the counter
liable to be de-exhibited
and consequently suit is liable to be dismissed.
13) Ex.A1 is the agreement to sell dated 19.12.1986 whereunder ... said document is directed to be de-exhibited
from the record.
In the result, Ex.A1agreement to sell shall hold good but since
trial Court has admitted those documents as evidence. The question of De-exhibition of Ex.A1 does not arise when the said document
filed IA No.27 of 2015 in the said suit to
de-exhibit the said Exs.A1 and A2 and collect proper stamp duty ... penalty was
paid. In those circumstances, the defendants wanted to de-exhibit the
said two agreements of sale.
5. A counter was filed
decided and if the document is exhibited, the same cannot be de-exhibited again and in view of the same, it would be always just ... documents when once admitted as exhibits cannot be sought to be de-exhibited on the ground that they are not properly stamped. The inadmissibility
Court held that when once a document had been marked as an exhibit and had been used by the parties for examination of witnesses, Section ... part of the record, application filed by the plaintiff to de-exhibit such document is misconceived.
18. It is no doubt true that
Hyderabad, exhibit R33 is the order of Jagir
administrator, dt.16.01.1957, exhibit R34 is the succession order of Tahsildar,
Taluq Baghad, exhibit ... Chevella, which is exhibited as exhibit P22 and had inter alia
directed to conduct de novo enquiry, giving notices to all concerned, in regard
evidence already recorded and framed a charge instead of having a de novo trial.
(2) It is pointed out by the District Magistrate taht this ... Madras High Court remarked that exhibition of witnesses' deposition in the previous trial, without actually examining them de novo was irregular and the consent
