The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections to the admissibility of a document should be raised and decided before the document is exhibited in evidence.

R.V. Ghuge, J.

1. I have heard Mr. Uday S. Malte, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner for quite sometime. The petitioner takes an exception to the impugned order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the trial Court below Exhibit-147 in RCS No. 159/2001.

2. The grievance is that an objection raised under Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been considered by the trial Court in it's proper perspective and has, therefore, led to the passing of the impugned order, which is erroneous.

3. The factual matrix reveals that the second witness of the plaintiff filed an affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief at Exhibit-145 under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is dated 16.9.2014. On the same date, the said witness before the trial Court, verified the contents of the said affidavit. Further examination-in-chief was conducted. The "Sammati Patra" (consent deed/letter) dated 22.9.1993 was placed on record. The said document was shown to the said witness who identified the said document. He identified his signature as well as signatures appearing on the said document. He stated that the signatories have signed upon the said document in his presence. He, therefore, accepted the contents of the said document to be true and correct. Thereafter, the said consent deed, which is at issue in this petition, was allotted an Exhibit No. 146.

4. The defendant No. 1 did not desire to cross-examine the said witness and as such, it was observed that there was no cross-examination on his behalf.

5. The defendant No. 2, who is the petitioner herein, sought an adjournment. It needs mention that the examination-in-chief and the events following thereafter, as are recorded in the above paragraphs, reveal that the petitioner had not raised an objection to the consent deed Exhibit-146 prior to it being confronted to the plaintiffs witness No. 2. It also appears that when it was shown to the said witness, there has been no objection on behalf of any of the defendants much less the petitioner. In this backdrop, the said witness, as observed above, has identified the contents of the said document and signatories and thereafter, the trial Court has granted an Exhibit No. 146 to the said document.

6. After the matter was adjourned on 16.9.2014, the petitioner raised an objection below Exhibit-147 on 1.10.2014 under Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w sections 34 and 35 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1950. As such, it was prayed that Exhibit-146 be held to be inadmissible in evidence. The respondents herein opposed the said application.

7. Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:

"Order XIII: Production, Impounding and Return of Documents:-

(3) Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents:-

The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection."

8. By the impugned order dated 11.11.2014 which resulted in the rejection of application Exhibit-147, the trial Court has noted that the defendant No. 2/petitioner herein, had not raised any objection while exhibiting the said document when the examination-in-chief of the plaintiffs witness was being recorded. It is also noted that once the document was exhibited, there is no provision to de-exhibit it. While drawing such conclusions, the trial Court has secured the interest of the petitioner by observing that whether, the said document was admissible or not, and as to whether, it needs to be rejected under Order XIII, Rule 3, could not be decided at that stage in the suit. The trial Court has, therefore, noted that the said document cannot be rejected without recording evidence of the parties.

9. I, therefore, find that though the trial Court has rejected the said application, it is left open for the petitioner to address the trial Court at an appropriate stage so as to enable the trial Court to consider such objections after heari