Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, who was the defendant No.3 in a civil suit (O.S.No.25874/2010) pending before the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 20.11.2015. By that order, the trial court had refused to direct the respondents-plaintiffs to mark certain documents (Annexure-J series) as their exhibits, even though those documents had been produced by the petitioner on the direction of the trial court made at the request of the plaintiffs. The petitioner argued that since the documents were produced at the instance of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs had pressed them into evidence, the trial court was not justified in refusing to mark them as plaintiffs' exhibits. The respondents opposed the petition. The High Court, after hearing the counsel, held that Section 163 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not prohibit the marking of documents produced by a party on the direction of the court at the instance of the opposite party. The court observed that the documents were produced by the petitioner on the order of the trial court made at the request of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs had pressed them into evidence. Therefore, the trial court's refusal to mark them as plaintiffs' exhibits was erroneous. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned portion of the order, and directed the trial court to mark the documents as exhibits of the plaintiffs. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the suit or the evidentiary value of the documents.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Evidence - Marking of Documents - Section 163 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The trial court refused to direct the plaintiffs to mark documents produced by the defendant on the court's order at the plaintiffs' instance. The High Court held that Section 163 does not bar the marking of such documents as exhibits of the party who called for them. The court reasoned that the documents were produced at the instance of the plaintiffs and they had pressed them into evidence, so the trial court was not justified in letting them go without marking them from the plaintiffs' series. The writ petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to mark the documents as exhibits of the plaintiffs. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to direct the plaintiffs to mark documents produced by the defendant on the court's order at the plaintiffs' instance, as part of the plaintiffs' evidence, in light of Section 163 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned portion of the order dated 20.11.2015 (Annexure-A) is quashed. The trial court is directed to mark the documents (Annexure-J series) as exhibits of the plaintiffs. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 163 of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- does not prohibit the marking of documents produced by a party on the direction of the court at the instance of the opposite party
- such documents can be marked as exhibits of the party who called for them
- the trial court's refusal to mark documents as plaintiff's exhibits was erroneous and warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (07) 27
Writ Petition No.53805 of 2015 (GM-CPC)
Sri. Rajadithya Sadasivan for petitioner; Sri. V.B. Shivakumar for R1 and R2; Smt. Sunitha H. Singh for R4 and R5
Smt. Radhika Vasudevan, Smt. Padmini Narayan, Sri. P. Murlidhar, Smt. Sangeetha Ravikanth, Smt. Indira Parthasarathy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the trial court refusing to direct the plaintiffs to mark documents produced by the defendant as their exhibits.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (defendant No.3) sought quashing of the portion of the order dated 20.11.2015 rejecting his demand under Section 163 of the Evidence Act and a direction to respondent No.1 to give as evidence the documents in Annexure-J series in O.S.No.25874/2010.
Filing Reason
The trial court refused to direct the plaintiffs to mark documents produced by the defendant on the court's order at the plaintiffs' instance, which the petitioner contended was erroneous under Section 163 of the Evidence Act.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) passed the order dated 20.11.2015 refusing to mark the documents as plaintiff's exhibits.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to direct the plaintiffs to mark documents produced by the defendant on the court's order at the plaintiffs' instance, as part of the plaintiffs' evidence, in light of Section 163 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the documents having been produced by him on the direction of the trial court made at the instance of the plaintiffs, who have pressed the same into evidence, the court is not justified in letting them go without marking them from their series of exhibits.
Respondents opposed the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 163 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not prohibit the marking of documents produced by a party on the direction of the court at the instance of the opposite party. Such documents can be marked as exhibits of the party who called for them. The trial court's refusal to mark the documents as plaintiff's exhibits was erroneous and warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner being the defendant No.3 in respondents civil suit in O.S.No.25874/2010 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking invalidation of the order dated 20.11.2015, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the subject documents having been produced by the petitioners on the direction of the trial Court made at the instance of the respondent-plaintiffs who have pressed the same into evidence, Court is not justified in letting them go without marking the same from their series of exhibits;
Section 163 of the Evidence Act does not prohibit the marking of documents produced by a party on the direction of the Court at the instance of the opposite party.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned portion of the order is quashed; the trial Court is directed to mark the subject documents as exhibits of the plaintiffs.
Procedural History
The petitioner, defendant No.3 in O.S.No.25874/2010, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which refused to direct the plaintiffs to mark certain documents as their exhibits. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 02.07.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 163
- Constitution of India: 227
