Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Swaran Singh (since deceased) through his LRs – Appellant
Versus
Mohan Daur Rayat @ Monee & Ors. – Respondents
CR No. 4706 of 2017
Decided On : 17-05-2024
EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - The court emphasized that documents should only be denied admission if deemed irrelevant or inadmissible, and the trial court's failure to consider these factors necessitated the setting aside of its order.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a revision petition challenging the trial court's order that refused to mark a medical report with an Apostille certificate as an exhibit, citing that the plaintiff had already made numerous applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court did not properly assess the relevance or admissibility of the document in question, which warranted the setting aside of the impugned order.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to mark the medical report as an exhibit without determining its relevance or admissibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that documents should only be excluded from evidence if they are found to be irrelevant or inadmissible, and the trial court's oversight in this regard was a significant error.
Result: The revision petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to reconsider the admission of the medical report in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.
This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff to assail the correctness of the trial court’s order dated 12.07.2017, while refusing to mark medical report bearing the Apostille certificate as exhibit on the ground that the petitioner bas already availed sufficient opportunity and has filed plethora of applications.
2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the case is at the stage of the plaintiff’s evidence and unless the corn records a finding that the aforesaid document is either not relevant or is admissible in evidence, the court is not justified in passing the impugned order.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the plaintiff has already files a plethora of applications.
4. This court has considered the submission made by the learned counsel representing the parties and analysed their arguments.
5. Once the case is pending for the plaintiff’s evidence, marking documents in evidence can be denied only when the court comes to a conclusion that such document is either not relevant or not admissible in evidence. However, the court has not adverted to these facts. Hence, the impugned order is set aside, while requesting the trial court to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
6. The revision petition stands allowed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
AI
A court must evaluate the relevance and admissibility of documents before denying their admission into evidence.
The admissibility of documents in civil proceedings must be determined judicially, particularly concerning compliance with stamp duty requirements under the Indian Stamp Act.
Documents marked in prior interlocutory application can be received at trial without fresh leave under Order VII Rule 14 CPC if relevant.
Unregistered sale deeds cannot be admitted as evidence to establish rights due to statutory inadmissibility, even if previously marked as evidence under objection.
Marked documents are not admitted as evidence without judicial determination; objections to admissibility can be raised at any stage.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
