Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Tukaram Bharadkar, filed a civil suit (Civil Suit No.3600 of 2004) against the respondent, Santosh Gopichand Rane. On 19-7-2005, the petitioner sought to lead evidence by way of an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), along with certain documents. The trial court took the affidavit on record as Exhibit-1, the list of documents as Exhibit-2, and the documents (serial Nos.1 to 7) were marked as Exhibits 3 to 9, subject to objection. The respondent's advocate was directed to give his say on admissibility. The matter was adjourned to 28-7-2005 and then to 16-8-2005. On 16-8-2005, the petitioner entered the witness box and placed the affidavit in evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief, in the absence of the respondent and his advocate. Later, the respondent's advocate appeared and was allowed to cross-examine. On that occasion, the trial court passed an order de-exhibiting documents at serial Nos.3, 4, and 5. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the law does not permit de-exhibition of documents once exhibited, and that no opportunity was given to prove the documents. The High Court held that de-exhibition is permissible under the CPC, but the trial court must give the party an opportunity to prove the documents before excluding them. The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to give the petitioner an opportunity to prove the documents in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - De-exhibition of Documents - Permissibility - Order 18 Rule 4, Order 13 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that de-exhibition of documents is permissible under the CPC, but the plaintiff must be given an opportunity to prove the documents before they are excluded from evidence. The trial court's order de-exhibiting documents without such opportunity was set aside. (Paras 2-4) B) Civil Procedure - Opportunity to Prove Documents - Necessity - Order 18 Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that before refusing to admit documents, the trial court must give the party an opportunity to prove the documents in accordance with law. The impugned order was set aside as it denied such opportunity. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could de-exhibit documents already marked as exhibits without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to prove them.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 16-8-2005 is set aside. The trial court is directed to give the petitioner an opportunity to prove the documents in accordance with law. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- De-exhibition of documents is permissible under CPC
- Opportunity to prove documents must be given before exclusion
- Order 18 Rule 4 CPC
- Order 13 Rule 3 CPC
