Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a partition suit filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) against the appellants (defendants 3 and 4) seeking partition, rendition of accounts, and permanent injunction. The suit concerned family properties. Evidence was originally closed in 2018. The plaintiffs successfully moved applications to reopen evidence and recall PW1, which was eventually allowed by a Division Bench on 10.03.2020. In 2024, the defendants filed applications to reopen evidence and recall DW1 for rebuttal, which was allowed on 21.02.2024. During the cross-examination of DW1, the plaintiffs' counsel sought to mark a xerox copy of a declaration allegedly made by the father of the parties as Ex.P.16. The defendants objected, wanting to peruse the document first, but the Additional Master II directed that it be marked as an exhibit subject to objections. The document was accordingly marked. Subsequently, D3 and D4 filed A.No.5542 of 2024 seeking rejection of Ex.P.16 on the grounds that it was a mere xerox copy, signed only by the father, and lacked necessary signatures, thereby challenging its admissibility and veracity. The trial judge, by order dated 27.01.2025, dismissed the application, holding that the veracity and validity of the document would be considered at the trial stage. The appellants challenged this order under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The core legal issue was whether the trial court erred in marking the document subject to objections instead of rejecting it outright given the objections to its admissibility. The appellants argued that the document was inadmissible and relied on G.M. Shahul Hameed v. Jayanthi R. Hegde (AIR 2024 SC 3339), which held that objections to admissibility must be decided forthwith. The respondents contended that marking during cross-examination is routine and that objections could be dealt with at the final hearing. The Division Bench noted that the impugned order had safeguarded the appellants' interests by clarifying that the document's veracity would be examined at trial. It observed that marking of documents during cross-examination is a near automatic procedural step, subject to objections. The Bench distinguished the Supreme Court precedent, holding that the ratio in Shahul Hameed was confined to stamping objections and did not extend to other grounds such as those raised by the appellants. The Court also referred to Rattan v. Bajran Lal (AIR 1978 SC 1393), where even in a stamping objection, postponement of decision was permitted. Consequently, the Division Bench found no error in the impugned order, dismissed the appeal and the connected miscellaneous petition, and imposed no costs.
Headnote
A) Evidence - Documentary Evidence - Marking of Exhibits During Cross-Examination - Original Side Rules, Order 36 Rule 1 - Marking of a document tendered during cross-examination is a near automatic procedural step; objections to veracity or validity can be recorded and decided at the stage of final arguments, not at the time of marking. Held that the trial court correctly marked Ex.P.16 subject to objection and deferred determination of its validity to trial (Paras 8-9, 13, 15). B) Evidence - Admissibility of Documents - Objection to Xerox Copy and Lack of Signatures - Letters Patent, Clause 15 - The principle that objections to admissibility must be decided immediately is confined to objections based on insufficiency of stamp duty. Objections concerning the veracity, validity, or form of a document (such as being a xerox copy or lacking signatures) may be postponed for determination at the final hearing. Held that the decision in G.M. Shahul Hameed does not apply, and the trial court's approach was consistent with the practice noted in Rattan v. Bajran Lal (Paras 12-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in marking the disputed document Ex.P.16 as an exhibit subject to objections and declining to reject it at the marking stage, despite objections regarding its admissibility as a xerox copy and lack of necessary signatures?
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The Division Bench held that the marking of the document during cross-examination was near automatic, and the objections regarding veracity and validity could be decided by the trial court at the stage of arguments. The impugned order did not compromise appellants' interests. The ratio of Shahul Hameed concerning stamping objections need not be extended to other objections. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- marking of documents during cross-examination is a routine procedural step
- objections to admissibility other than stamping may be decided at final hearing
- the ratio in G.M. Shahul Hameed is confined to stamping objections
- objections to veracity and validity of documents can be postponed
- marking subject to objection does not prejudice parties
- the trial court has discretion to determine admissibility at later stage
