Documents which are not inherently inadmissible can be admitted into evidence even if they are hearsay, provided that the party against whom they are tendered does not object to their admissibility.

( 1 ) THE present Revisional application is directed against Order No. 76 dated 6th May, 1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore, in Matrimonial Suit No. 59 of 1988, whereby the learned Additional District Judge rejected an application preferred on behalf of the husband for expunction of Exhibits A and A-1 from the records of the case. The said two exhibits are a prescription and a medical certificate granted by Dr. Ranjit Kumar Panja, a wellknown Dermatologist and relates! to the wife/opposite party. The said two documents were tendered to the husband while he was being cross-examined and on the basis of the statement made by him in cross-examination, these were marked as exhibits in the aforesaid manner.

( 2 ) IT is pertinent to note, at this stage that the suit for divorce had been filed by the husband, Inter alia, on the ground of cruelty, predominantly mental, by alleging that the wife/opposite party had boils and scars all over the body and was thus suffering from special type of skin disease which was incurable and the marriage was solemnized on suppressing such ail-meat.

( 3 ) THE short question which has been raised in this Revisional application is as to whether the learned Trial Judge should have allowed the prayer for expunction of these exhibits as inadmissible on the ground that the same should not constitute a part of the records without Dr. Panja being called to the witness box. The question, though apparently simple, has assumed a complex character by the ingenuity and forensic dexterity of the learned Advocates, representing the contesting parties, and as a result of their endeavour to interprete the large number of decisions, cited in justification of their respective submissions and view points. For the purpose of record, we may state that the following decisions were cited in course of hearing.

( 4 ) ON a careful perusal of the ratios propounded by the aforesaid decisions, it cannot be disputed that admission of such documents has been apparently deprecated and discouraged. Mr. Dasgupta, relying upon the said decisions, has emphatically argued that the documents in the instant case, in the context of the ratios propounded in the said decisions, must be treated or taken to be inherently inadmissible as 'worst form of hearsay evidence' and must not be allowed to form part of the records, to avoid any influence on the decisions to be made ultimately in the suit. On the basis of such reasoning, he has assailed the propriety of the impugned order and has made a prayer that this Court should allow the prayer of the husband-petitioner for expunction.

( 5 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury, on the other hand, has distinguished all the said decisions by a broad fact that the occasion for consideration of such a point about admissibility of documents of the nature of those as are found in the present case, arose only after conclusion of the trial and as such it was possible for the higher Court to find out the nature of the user of such documents in the said cited cases and classify the same as to be hearsay evidence and declare that the same were inherently inadmissible. In the present case, according to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, such a stage is yet to arrive and as such, it would be premature to ask the Court to deal with the prayer for expunction of the documents, without knowing the purpose of the manner of utilisation of the same as corroborative evidence.

( 6 ) WE have carefully considered the respective submissions, as summarised hereinabove, and also the ratios propounded in the cited decisions. In our view, in approaching a problem of the present nature, it is to be borne in mind that admissibility of a document has to be judged upon consideration of the nature of the fact in issue or relevant fact and the purpose or the manner in which the document is sought to be utilised as a corroborative evidence. It is further to be borne in mind that the Evidence Act has, by sta