The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of admissibility and mode of proof of exhibited documents can be deferred to the final stage of the trial, in accordance with the legal framework and procedural rules.

JUDGMENT :

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14th August, 2018 by which the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been disposed of by the ld. Trial Court in the following terms:

"Matter is listed for rerecording of testimony of the petitioner. An application u/s 65 of the Evidence Act r/w Section 151 CPC dated 13.08.2018 is filed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. Copy of the application is supplied.

The application is taken up. It is stated in the application that the petitioner has wrongly exhibited many documents in his affidavit. It is stated that these documents cannot be proved by the petitioner and ought to be de-exhibited.

The application is opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that application has been filed only to delay the disposal of the case.

Record is perused.

In case a document is not proved in accordance with law, either because it is inadmissible or the mode of proof is not as per law, it shall, not be read in evidence while finally deciding the case. The specific objections taken by the respondent qua various documents need not be discussed and determined by the court at this stage. With these observations, the application is disposed off.

The petitioner has tendered his affidavit. Ld. Proxy counsel for the respondents submits that the matter be passed over to 2:00 pm for cross-examination of the petitioner. It is submitted by the Ld. Proxy counsel that the Ld. Main counsel for the respondents who is to cross-examine the petitioner is busy before another court and will be available to appear in this case at 2:00 pm.

The undersigned has to attend a meeting convened by the Ld. Senior Civil judge today at 3:00 pm. Ld proxy counsel for the respondents assures the court that the Ld. Main counsel for the respondents shall start and conclude cross-examination of the petitioner from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm.

In view of the assurance given by the Ld. Proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, matter is passed over till 2:00 pm for cross-examination of PW1.

Matter is again called out at 2:00 pm.

Present: Ld. Counsel for the petitioner along with PW1.

Ld. Proxy counsel for the respondents.

Ld. Proxy counsel for the respondents submits that Ld.

Main counsel for the respondents cannot appear today.

He prays for an adjournment.

Request for adjournment is vehemently is opposed.

Record is perused. Matter has been adjourned at the request of the respondents several times. Cost have also been imposed upon them.

It was at their request that the matter was passed over to 2:00 pm today and the petitioner and his counsel were made to wait from 10:00 am till 2:00 pm. However, a lenient view is taken and request for adjournment is allowed, though subject to cost of Rs. 10000/- to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner. Ld. Proxy counsel for the respondents undertakes that the cost shall be paid on the next date of hearing.

Subject to payment of cost, matter is adjourned and cross examination of PW-1 is deferred to 31.08.2018. It is submitted by the Ld. Proxy counsel for the respondents that it is convenient for the Ld. Main counsel to appear before the court on 31.08.2018."

2. The issue raised by the ld. counsel for the Petitioners is that the objections as to inadmissibility or mode of proof of a document exhibited by a witness ought to be determined by the Court prior to the commencement of the cross-examination itself. The exhibit marking ought not to be given mechanically by the Court, as that would seriously prejudice the case of the party conducting the cross-examination, inasmuch as the cross-examination would also extend to those documents in respect of which objections have been raised. Ld. counsel submits that forcing cross-examination in this manner, in respect of documents which have not been proved and are not even admissible in accordance with la