Admissibility of a document when can be decided - Marking of a document when can be done ?

Whether the document can be marked for identification purpose ?
i) A list of documents should be filed along with the plaint or written statement and if the parties want to file document subsequently, they have to take leave of the Court.
ii) The documents, which are marked, does not dispense with their proof.
iii) There is a difference between marking of a document and admitting the same in evidence.
iv) As held by the Supreme Court in R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder (supra), the objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence can be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. When the objection relates to mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. This later objection is an objection relating to the irregularity or insufficiency.
v) In order to avoid delay in the trial of the suit, the Court can tentatively mark a document and examine its admissibility and the objection raised to it along with the pronouncement of judgment.
Since, in the instant case, the order of the trial Court speaks of receiving of the document only without passing a judicial order on its admissibility, the defendant can as well raise his objection as to its admissibility at a later stage, and the trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. The objection relating to relevancy of the document need not be decided at the time of marking the document. It relates to admissibility and can be raised by the defendant at a later stage and should be decided by the Court at the time of pronouncement of judgment. Though the plaintiff has not sought leave of the Court while filing the list of documents on 30.04.2013, subsequent to the filing of the plaint, this Court considers the said defect as an irregularity and not an illegality. Since Exs.A6 to A10 were already marked from out of the list of documents, it is assumed that the trial Court has permitted such filing of the documents. However, the trial Court, hereafter, should scrupulously follow the provisions of CPC while receiving and marking the documents.-2015 Telagana & A.P. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS