Disposed¶28

Supriya Kumar Laha and Anr. v. Md. Rahatullah and Ors.

Calcutta HC7 May 2025CO/1243/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

exhibit marking versus proof of document; certified copy of sale deed; admissibility; exhibition for identification only; Sudir Engineering Company vs. Nitco Roadways Ltd., 1995 II AD (Delhi) 189; Order No.71 dated 24th February, 2023; Misc. P 77/2013; sale deed executed 9th August, 2011, registered 23rd November, 2011; liberty to raise objections; directions to Trial Court; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions that the Trial Court independently examine the admissibility of the sale deed irrespective of the exhibit mark, decide the petitioner's objections in accordance with law, and proceed expeditiously without being influenced by the impugned order. ¶28

Supriya Kumar Laha and Anr. Vs Md. Rahatullah and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Court could have allowed the making of the exhibit mark on the sale deed, the document tendered being a certified copy. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not amount to proof of the document; such exhibition is only for the purpose of identification.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Exhibit marking will not make the sale deed dated 9th August, 2011 (registered 23rd November, 2011) proved; the court will form its judicial opinion after looking at the statements of the witnesses and all attending facts and circumstances.

¶22

Key takeaways

The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all objections regarding the proof of the document, and the learned Trial Court shall form the judicial opinion in accordance with law without being influenced by the present order.ratio¶22
Direction (i): the Trial Court shall independently examine the admissibility of the sale deed executed on 9th August, 2011 and registered on 23rd November, 2011, irrespective of the exhibit marked on it.ratio¶26
Direction (ii): the Trial Court shall decide the objections raised by the petitioner on the admissibility of the document in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition (CO 1243 of 2023) challenging Order No.71 dated 24th February, 2023 in Misc. P 77/2013, by which the learned Trial Court allowed the opposite parties' application for making the exhibit mark on a certified copy of a sale deed executed on 9th August, 2011 and registered on 23rd November, 2011. Relying on Sudir Engineering Company vs. Nitco Roadways Ltd., 1995 II AD (Delhi) 189, the Court held that mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not amount to proof of the document; exhibition is only for identification. The petition was disposed of with directions that the Trial Court independently examine the admissibility of the sale deed irrespective of the exhibit mark, decide the petitioner's objections in accordance with law, and proceed expeditiously without being influenced by the impugned order.

¶1

07.05.2025

¶2

Court No.652 Sl. No.38 Mujahid

¶3

CO 1243 of 2023

¶4

Sri Supriya Kumar Laha & Anr. Vs. Md. Rahatullah & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Patha Pratim Roy, Mr. Anirban Das, Mr. Saikat Gayen

¶6

…for the petitioners

¶7

Mr. Animesh Mukherjee, Md. Ali Ahasan

¶8

…for the opposite parties

¶9

Present petition has been filed challenging the Order No.71 dated 24^th February, 2023 in Misc. P 77/2013 whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the application for the opposite parties for making the exhibit mark on sale deed executed on 9^th August, 2011 and registered on 23^rd November, 2011. The objection of the petition is two folds; firstly, that these being certified copy the learned Trial Court could not have allowed the making of exhibit mark and secondly, no opportunity was given to the petitioner for raising objection or conducting cross-examination of the same.

¶10

In Sudir Engineering Company vs. Nitco Roadways Ltd., 1995 II AD (Delhi) 189, the court

¶11

considers the question that “can a document marked

¶12

¶13

as an exhibit only if it has been proved” and “does mere endorsing of an exit number on the document tantamounts to expression of judicial opinion”. The Delhi High Court after considering the entire law on this point inter alia held:-

¶14

“ (13) Admission of a document in evidence is not to be confused with proof of a document.

¶15

(14) When the Court is called upon to examine the admissibility of a document it concentrates only on the document. When called upon to form a judicial opinion whether a document has been proved, disproved or not proved the Court would look not at the document alone or only at the statement of the witness standing in the box; it would take into consideration probabilities of the case as emerging from the whole record. It could not have been intendment of any law, rule or practice direction to expect the Court applying its judicial mind to the entire record of the case, each lime a document was placed before it for being exhibited and form an opinion if it was proved before marking it as an exhibit.

¶16

(15) The marking of a document as an exhibit, be it in any manner whatsoever either by use of alphabets or by use of numbers, is only for the purpose of identification. While reading the record the parties and the Court should be able to know which was the document before the witness when it was deposing. Absence of putting an endorsement for the purpose of identification no sooner a document is placed before a witness would cause serious confusion as one would be left simply guessing or wondering which was the document to which the witness was referring to when deposing. Endorsement of an exhibit number on a document has no relation with its proof. Neither the marking of an exhibit number can be postponed till the document has been held proved; nor the document can be held to have been proved merely because it has been marked as an exhibit.

¶17

(16) This makes the position of law clear. Any practise contrary to the above said statement of law has no sanctity and cannot be permitted to prevail.

¶18

(17) Every Court is free to regulate its own affairs within the framework of law. Chapter Xiii

¶19

¶20

Rule 3 above said contemplates documents admitted in evidence being numbered in such manner as the Court may direct. I make it clear for this case and for all the cases coming up before me in future that the documents tendered and admitted in evidence shall be marked with numerical serial numbers, prefixed by Ex.P if filed by plaintiff or petitioner and prefixed by Ex.D if filed by defendant or respondent.”

¶21

Therefore, it is clear that the mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not amount to proof of a document such exhibition is only for the purpose of identification.

¶22

In view of the position of law as it exists now mere marking the document as an exhibit will not make the sale deed dated 9^th August, 2011 registered on 23^rd November, 2011 as having been proved. The court will form the judicial opinion after looking at the statement of the witnesses and all attended facts and circumstances. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all objections regarding the proof of the document and the learned trial court shall form the judicial opinion in accordance with law without being influenced by the present order.

¶23

In the circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with following directions:-

¶24

i) The court shall independently examine the admissibility of sale deed executed on 9^th August, 2011 and registered on 23^rd

¶25

¶26

November, 2011 irrespective of exhibit marked on it.

¶27

ii) The court shall decide the objections being raised by the petitioner on the admissibility of such document in accordance with law.

¶28

The present petition stands disposed of.

¶29