Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—By this writ petition, the defendants have challenged the order dtd. 7.8.2006 whereby the learned Trial Court held that the issue as the admissibility of the document in question, namely, the agreement on which respondents- plaintiffs had based their suit for specific performance, will be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit.

2. The defendants-petitioners have challenged the said order on the ground that the question of admissibility of evidence could not be postponed and deferred to be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit itself and such question was required to be decided forthwith by the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants Dr. Sachin Acharya, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Anr. reported in (2003) 8 SCC 752 and later decision of this Court in the case of LRs. of late Sh. Chittar Mal vs. Addl. Civil Judge (SD) and ors. reported in 2005(1) DNJ (Raj.) 366 submitted that it was not the objection of the defendants as to only mode of proof of said document, namely, agreement in question, but objection was as to the admissibility of the evidence itself and therefore, the learned trial Court has fallen into error in postponing the decision on the said objection until final arguments of the suit itself. He submitted that reliance placed by the learned Trial Court on the case of Jogindero Devi vs. Gurjant Singh reported in 2006(1) RRT 258 is misplaced and in the said judgment, reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2001 (1) RLW (SC) 169 is also misplaced because in the case of Bipin Shanti Lal Panchal (supra) as quoted by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid decision in the case of Jogindera Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that objection about the admissibility of the document can be raised at the time of cross-examination and such objection is required to be decided forthwith.

4. On the side opposite, Mr. B.R. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents reiterated the reasons given in the impugned order and submitted that the said objection can be decided at the time of final arguments and the learned Trial Court was justified in relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jogindero Devi (supra).

5. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that there is considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioners- defendants. It is considered appropriate to reproduce para 19 and 20 of the aforesaid cited Supreme Court decision in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder (supra) hereunder:

"19. Order 13 Rule 4 CPC provides for every document admitted in evidence in the suit being endorsed by or on behalf of the Court, which endorsement signed or initialled by the Judge amounts to admission of the document in evidence. An objection to the admissibility of the document should be raised before such endorsement is made and the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the question of admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend the document being endorsed as admitted or not admitted in evidence. In the latter case, the document may be returned by the Court to the person from whose custody it was produced.

20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on Roman Catholic Mission vs. State of Madras in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the above said case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence shoul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document