(August 2, 2001) 2001 (TLS)126069

2002-DLT-96-131 :: 2002-AD (Del)-2-805

SHAIL KUMARI Vs. SARASWATI DEVI

MAHMOOD ALI KHAN

( 1 ) ON the request of counsel for the parties arguments were heard for final disposal of the matter. This revision petition raises a simple as well as a question of great importance to the subordinate courts as to whether in the trial of a civil suit during examination of a witness when a document is tendered in evidence and it is sought to be proved the question of admissibility of that document and marking of the exhibit thereon may be deferred till the stage of hearing of final arguments.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the cause is that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration that she was the sole and absolute owner of the disputed wall and also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from raising any further construction in the suit property. On contest by the respondent, the trial court framed the issues. The petitioner did not enter into the witness box herself. She examined her daughter Ms. Geeta Rohtagi as Pw-3 to prove her case. In her statement Ms. Geeta Rohtagi stated that the petitioner had executed a power of attorney in her favour and she identified the signatures of the. petitioner on that document. The court put mark X on the document and recorded following observations in the statement;-

"the document is got marked because it has been filed at a belated stage. And there is not photocopy of the same is available on the record. Its admissibility to be decided at the time of final arguments. "

( 3 ) PW3 Ms. Geeta Rohtagi further stated that her mother, the petitioner, became owner of the property by virtue of a registered settlement deed dated 5/9/1950. She has brought the original deed of settlement, Hindi translation of which is marked Y Below it the court recorded the following observations;-

THE document has been marked because of the fact that there is not copy of the same available on record in Urdu language. Though the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that the translation of the same is on record in Hindi. whether should be exhibited or not is to be decided at the stage of final argument.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner filed an application under Order 13 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking permission of the court to produce photocopy of the settlement deed dated 5/9/1950 in Urdu script and also photocopy of a registered general power of attorney dated 31/7/1998. She moved another application under Section 151 civil Procedure Code inter alia, praying that the objections with regard to the exhibition of the two documents be decided at this stage rather than deferring them for decision at the stage of final argument. She also moved an application for amendment of the issue No. 1. All these three applications were disposed of by the learned Civil Judge by a common order dated 15/2/2000.

( 5 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Civil Judge by which he has declined to allow her to file the subsequent power of attorney dated 31/7/1998 and has deferred decision on the question of admissibility of the documents marked "x and "v and marking of exhibits on them at the stage of recording of evidence, to the stage of hearing of final arguments.

( 6 ) AT the outset a question was posed to the counsel for the petitioner whether one revision petition assailing two orders passed on separate and distinct subject matter in a civil suit is competent. The counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment in Nand Ram Vs. Karnail Singh and ofhers AIR 1978 Punjab and Haryana 100 has argued that a single petition may be filed for assailing two decisions if made by a common order. I have considered the judgment cited by him and do not find that it supports his argument, In the judgment the High Court has exercised its own powers suo motu for dealing with the second matter observing that it was within the