Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.
Saifuddin Saheblal Vazir .... Petitioner.
Versus
Habjabai Mishra Patel another.... Respondents.
Civil Revision Application No. 1329 of 2002, decided on 8-8-2002.
Advocates appeared :
Y.S. Jahagirdar Girish S. Godbole, for petitioner.
A.A. Kumbhakoni, for respondents.
City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 - Para 524 - Admissibility of document - Contended that the admissibility as an evidence could be decided only after showing of document in terms of Order XIII, Rule 4, CPC - If it is found to be unacceptable as evidence it can always be rejected vide Order XIII, Rule 6, CPC - A document can be exhibited as evidence only when it is admissible as an evidence. - Considering the provisions of law referred, it is difficult to agree with the submission by the Advocate for the petitioner that any document admitted and exhibited in terms of Rule 4, can be thereafter rejected under Rule 6 of Order XIII of CPC. The contention that exhibition of a document in evidence has nothing to do with the reading of the document in evidence has to be rejected. A document can be exhibited in evidence only when such a document is admissible in evidence and not otherwise. This is abundantly clear from the provisions of law contained in Rules 4 and 6 of Order XIII read with para 524 of the Civil Manual. In fact, provisions of law contained in Rules 4 are to be read with the Rule 6 of the Order XIII of CPC cannot be considered to be referable to two different stages. The question of exhibiting the document under Rule 4 can arise only if the document is found to be admissible in evidence and in case it is not admissible, the same is to be rejected in terms of Rule 6 of Order XIII read with para 524 of Civil Manual. Rule 4 of Order XIII speaks of admission of document in evidence and not merely exhibition of document. Rule 6 of Order XIII nowhere speaks about revocation of the order passed by the Court under Rule 4 of Order XIII.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XIII, Rules 4 and 6 - Civil Manual, para 524 - Production of documents - Admission or rejection in evidence - Endorsement of - A document can be exhibited in evidence only when document is admissible - If, not admissible - Liable to be rejected - Occasion for such consideration about admissibility or otherwise of document can arise when document sought to be tendered in evidence by party after entering into witness- box. - It is difficult to agree with the submission by the advocate for the petitioner that any document admitted and exhibited in terms of Rule 4, can be thereafter rejected under Rule 6, Order XIII of the CPC. The contention that exhibition of a document in evidence has nothing to do with the reading of the document in evidence has to be rejected. A document can be exhibited in evidence only when such a document is admissible in evidence and not otherwise. This is abundantly clear from the provisions of law contained in Rules 4 and 6 of Order XIII read with para 524 of the Civil Manual. In fact, provisions of law contained in Rule 4 are to be read with the Rule 6 of Order XIII of the CPC cannot be considered to be referable to two different stages. The question of exhibiting the document under Rule 4 can arise only if the document is found to be admissible in evidence and in case it is not admissible, the same is to be rejected in terms of Rule 6 of Order XIII read with para 524 of the Civil Manual. Rule 4 of Order XIII speaks of admission of document in evidence and not merely exhibition of document. Rule 6 of Order XIII nowhere speaks about revocation of the order passed by the Court under Rule 4 of Order XIII. The issue as to whether the document in question is a document creating a lease or not, whether it is a receipt acknowledging the rent in advance or not, have not at all been considered by the Trial Court. Undoubtedly, as rightly submitted by the learned advocates for the respondents the occasion for such consideration had also not arisen before the Trial Court. Certainly, the occasion for the same can arise when the document is sought to be tendered in the evidence by the party after entering into the witness-box.
2. The suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 440/1982 came to be filed by the respondents for eviction of the petitioner from a plot of land admeasuring 27 x 54 sq.ft. out of property bearing C.T.S. No. 1333/27, "E" Ward, Tarna Nagar Co-operative Society, Sagarmal, Kolhapur and was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal against the same was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The matter was carried in Writ Petition No. 1363/1995. The learned Single Judge of this Court after taking stock of the facts of the case, disputed as well as undisputed, pinpointed the dispute being related to the document dated 31st March, 1976 which according to the respondents speaks of creation of lease for more than one year, and therefore, in the absence of registration thereof, is not admissible in evidence and cannot be read in evidence for any purpose whereas, according to the petitioner, the said document does not create lease but it is merely a receipt given by the respondents to the petitioner acknowledging the receipt of rent of the suit premises for a period of 98 years in advance, and in consideration of permission for sub-letting of the premises by the petitioner. After ascertaining the exact nature and the scope of the dispute relating to the document in question, it was held that, :
"If the document dated 31st March, 1976 is held to be a document creating the lease as it is not registered, obviously it cannot be read in evidence for any purpose including for the purpose of showing that the landlady was permitted sub-letting of the premises. On the contrary, if the document is held to be a document not creating a lease, but merely acknowledging the receipt of advance rent, then obviously it is not compulsory to have it registered and, therefore, can be admitted in evidence."
With the above ruling in the matter, it was further observed that:
"Both the sides have agreed before me that the evidence on record has not been appreciated by both the courts below from this point of view."
And consequently with the consent of the parties, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh trial of the suit only on the ground of sub-letting.
3. During the trial, the petitioner filed an application praying that the document in question may be exhibited and read in evidence. The application was objected to by the respondents. The trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the said application on the ground that the document of which the registration is compulsory, the same cannot be exhibited and that it is clear that a document in question has not been registered and, therefore, cannot be exhibited at any time or at any costs.
4. Assailing the impugned order, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has dismissed the application totally ignoring the rule issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1363/1995 and thereby has acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction while rejecting the prayer for exhibiting the document and reading the same in evidence. Placing reliance in the decision of the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in (Sardar Amar Singh and another v. Smt. Surinder Kaur)1, reported in A.I.R. 1975 Madhya Pradesh 230, it was submitted that the document though has not been registered, it can be looked into for collateral purpose like for the purpose of considering the nature of the dealing and the status as that of a tenant in relation to the suit premises. It is also sought to be argued that the point relating to admissibility of the document in evidence and reading thereof in evidence can be decided after exhibiting the document in terms of Order XIII, Rule 4 of C.P.C., and in case the document is found to be not admissible in evidence it can always be rejected in terms of Rule 6 of Order XIII of C.P.C. after the document is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
