Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in a testamentary suit filed by the respondent seeking probate of the will of late C. Shyamalavalli. The appellants, as defendants, contested the suit. The respondent filed a proof affidavit along with documents, prompting the appellants to apply under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to eschew the affidavit and certain documents, alleging irrelevance. The Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 04.11.2022, partially allowed the application by eschewing documents that were xerox copies without explanation, but permitted other documents to be marked, noting that the will could be marked through the beneficiary and that lengthy affidavits could not be faulted. The Division Bench dismissed the appellants' appeal on 21.08.2024, holding that eschewing would cause prejudice, that the will must be proved to the court's satisfaction, and imposed costs of Rs.10,000. In appeal before the Supreme Court, the primary legal issue was whether the High Court correctly applied Order XIII Rule 3 CPC. The Supreme Court analyzed the scope of the provision and relied on the three-Judge Bench decision in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, which established that objections to admissibility of documents (except stamp duty) should be decided at the final judgment stage, with documents tentatively marked, to avoid prolonging litigation. The Court also emphasized that mere marking of a document does not constitute proof, and the contents must be proved in accordance with the Evidence Act, citing LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen. Finding that the documents not eschewed were not prima facie inadmissible and that the Single Judge had correctly excluded only unsupported xerox copies, the Supreme Court held no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed, the impugned order upheld, and the stay of proceedings granted on 11.11.2024 was vacated, directing the trial to proceed uninfluenced by any observations.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Irrelevant or Inadmissible Documents - Scope of Order XIII Rule 3 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XIII Rule 3 - The court may reject documents at any stage if irrelevant or inadmissible, but documents not prima facie inadmissible cannot be rejected at threshold. The Single Judge correctly eschewed only xerox copies without explanation, while permitting other documents related to family property and pending suits, as they were not prima facie inadmissible. (Paras 5,8,9) B) Evidence - Admissibility Objections - Procedure to be Followed - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XIII Rule 3; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - A three-Judge Bench in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1 laid down that objections to admissibility (except stamp duty) should be tentatively marked and decided at final judgment to avoid prolonging trial. The High Court followed this procedure, and the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere. (Paras 10,11) C) Evidence - Proof of Documents - Marking vs. Proof - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - As per LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491, mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not prove its contents; proof must be by primary or secondary evidence. The Court observed that the contents of marked documents will have to be proved in accordance with law, and eschewing at this stage was unwarranted. (Paras 11,12) D) Succession Law - Testamentary Proceedings - Interim Stage Evidence - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - In a suit for probate, the will must be proved to the satisfaction of the court; therefore, eschewing relevant documents at preliminary stage would prejudice the plaintiff's case. The High Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs due to lack of bona fides, which the Supreme Court upheld. (Paras 5,6,9,13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court correctly applied Order XIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in refusing to eschew the proof affidavit and certain documents at an interim stage of the probate proceedings.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's orders, holding that the Single Judge correctly rejected only xerox copies without originals and permitted other documents to be marked, as they were not prima facie inadmissible. It reiterated that objections to admissibility should be decided at final judgment, following the precedent in Bipin Shantilal Panchal. The stay of proceedings was vacated and the trial directed to proceed.
Law Points
- Order XIII Rule 3 CPC
- mere marking of document not proof
- admissibility objections to be decided at final judgment stage
- testamentary proceedings require proof of will to satisfaction of court
- irrelevant or inadmissible documents can be rejected at any stage but not at threshold if not prima facie inadmissible
