PW-3 and they being admittedly part of the pleadings and averments in the suit plaint, learned Trial Court while taking these documents on record has passed orders which I find at page No. 107 and 110 of the Petition. By virtue of these orders, learned Trial Court has held that in view of the decision in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Commissioner for Greater Bombay1 the original document dated 30.04.2015 produced by PW-3 cannot be marked in evidence as an exhibit unless and until the said document stands proved by the executor of the said document. The decision in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills (supra) has subsequently been the subject matter of various Supreme Court judgments rather this is a case where reliance on any judgment of the Supreme Court would not be required to be placed in view of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Once the original document is placed on record, it is the duty of the Trial Court to mark the document since it is an original i.e. the original document executed by the Plaintiffs. Undoubtedly mere marking and exhibiting of the document in evidence will not prove the contents of the document and its contents will have to be proved by the party referring to and relying upon the same by cogent evidence. However, learned Trial Court has completely misguided itself while passing the order on both these documents. It infact holds that the
