Non-compliance with Order XIII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, regarding the endorsement of admitted documents, does not automatically render such documents inadmissible in evidence unless it results in prejudice to either party.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. This is a second appeal against the order dated 1.9.1987 passed by Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana, who accepted the appeal of the defendants and remanded the case to the trial Court under Order 41 Rule 23-A C.P.C. with the direction to record the evidence of the parties afresh in terms of the observations made the appellate court and then to decide the case afresh.

2. The brief facts of the case can be described in the following manner:-

Mehar Singh appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants on the plea that he is owner in possession of the plot measuring 1 Kanal 1 Maria contained in khasra No. 149 situated at village Hassanpur, tehsil and district Ludhiana. The defendants are co-sharer in other khasra numbers but they wanted to take the forcible possession of the plot in question. They have no right to do so. Hence the suit.

The suit was contested by the defendants on the plea that they are owners in possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the plot in dispute and being co-sharer injunction cannot be granted in this case against them. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues: -

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the defendants are owners of 1/4th share of the plot in dispute? OPD

3. Relief.

The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims and on the conclusion of the trial vide judgment and decree dated 28.7.1986 Mr. G.C. Suman, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ludhiana decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plot of dispute. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants filed the first appeal and the first appellate court for the reasons given in paras Nos. 8 and 9 of the judgment, as reproduced below, allowed the appeal and remanded the case under Order 41 Rule 23-A C.P.C.

"(8) At a very outset, the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants argued that in this case as many as six documents of the plaintiff were admitted into evidence by the trial Court and four documents were admitted into evidence. They were exhibited as PA and as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. No doubt, the said documents are marked with exhibit numbers (encircled in RED by me) but none of those exhibits bear the endorsement giving the particulars as required under Order XIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said provisions of the Code of Civil procedure require that not only every document which has been admitted into evidence in the suit, is to bear an endorsement giving the particulars mentioned in Order XIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and moreover the endorsement is to be signed or initialled by the Judge.

(9) In the instant case, the trial Judge, ignored the mandatory provisions of Order XIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as, no endorsement was made on the admitted documents bearing the particulars, as given in the said rule and none of the exhibit marks was signed or initialled by the Sub Judge and thus there has been non-compliance of the provisions of Order XIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Without the signatures and initials of the trial Judge on the exhibit marks and as such those exhibited documents cannot be read in evidence. It was obligatory upon the trail Judge to make the necessary endorsement on each exhibited document and to put his signatures or initials thereon. The lapse committed by the learned Sub Judge cannot be ignored. Since the authenticity of the exhibit marks on the said documents is in question, so, these documents cannot be read as a part of evidence. If the documentary evidence is excluded, then no proper decision can be given in this case. As such, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment and the decree based on the said evidence cannot be