Disposed

Sukha Singh and Anr. v. M/S S.S. Builders and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Sept 2011CR/5899/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court revisited a dismissal of an application to de-exhibit documents. It held that exhibit numbers assigned by the plaintiff in an affidavit do not automatically establish admissibility. The Court directed the trial court to assign exhibit marks before cross-examination commenced.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was disposed of with a方向 that the trial judge must assign exhibit marks to documents before cross-examination begins.

Sukha Singh and Anr. Vs M/S S.S… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.5899 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision: 26^th September, 2011

¶4

Sukha Singh and another

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s S.S.B. Builders and others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Present: Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to Yes see the judgment?

¶12

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

¶13

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 22^nd July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby application dated 30^th September, 2010 filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order XIII Rules 1 & 4 read with Section 151 CPC for de-exhibiting the documents exhibited as P4 to P17 has been dismissed.

¶15

A grievance was made by the petitioners-defendants in the application dated 30^th September, 2010 that the plaintiff has tendered his duly sworn in affidavit in the examination in-chief and in the same he has wrongly exhibited the documents as P4 to P17 without adopting the proper procedure of law. Various arguments were raised regarding

¶16

¶17

Civil Revision No.5899 of 2011 (O&M)

¶18

inadmissibility of the documents to which the plaintiff in his affidavit has assigned exhibits P4 to P17.

¶19

Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners-defendants, has stated that not only the respondent-plaintiff assigned exhibit numbers to the documents in his affidavit, the affidavit in itself has been taken as an exhibit for the purposes of examination inchief. Counsel has further stated that he had filed application at the earliest, as failure on his part to do so would have eclipsed his rights to say that he has not raised objections at the earliest.

¶20

I have perused Order XVIII Rule 4(1) CPC, which reads as

¶21

under:

¶22

“4. Recording of evidence

¶23

(1) In every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence:

¶24

PROVIDED that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed along with affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the Court.”

¶25

It is to be noticed that with effect from 1^st July, 2002, the mode of recording examination in-chief has undergone change. Earlier the examination in-chief was recorded by the Judge and while taking into consideration each document, exhibit or mark was assigned by the Judge. Legislature, knowing fully well that a change has taken place in the mode of recording of examination in-chief, in a proviso specifically

¶26

¶27

Civil Revision No.5899 of 2011 (O&M)

¶28

stated that all documents which are filed and upon which a party is relying, the proof and admissibility of such documents filed along with the affidavit shall be subject to orders of the Court.

¶29

Counsel for the petitioners has stated that till today, on each document the Judge has not appended his signatures ordering that it will be read as exhibit so and so.

¶30

After hearing counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that merely because the respondent-plaintiff in his affidavit assigned exhibits to the documents, they will not become automatically admissible unless and until a specific order, as per proviso to Order XVIII Rule 4(1) CPC, is passed by the Judge assigning them as a mark or exhibit numbers. The trial Judge has dismissed the application on the ground that mere exhibiting of a document is not a proof of its contents and the contents of the document have to be proved according to law.

¶31

To allay any kind of apprehension, present revision petition is disposed of by observing that before commencement of the crossexamination, the trial Judge after hearing the parties subject to the rules of admissibility shall assign each document an exhibit or a mark number as the need be to comply with proviso to Order XVIII Rule 4(1) CPC.

¶32

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶33

September 26, 2011 rps

Sukha Singh and Anr. v. M/S S.S. Builders and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukha Singh and Anr. v. M/S S.S. Builders and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karan Singh Vs Jodh Singh & Ors.

Gurjeet Singh Vs Kulwant Singh

Market Comittee, Shahabad Markanda Vs Kundan Lal & Others

Harbhajan Singh Vs Baldev Kaur etc.

Balwinder Singh Vs Puda and Ors.

Gurdial Kaur and Ors. Vs Santokh Singh and Ors.