: Procedural irregularities may not warrant interference if they do not cause prejudice, and an unregistered document can be rejected or de-exhibited under relevant legal provisions despite being initially admitted as evidence.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 29.04.2021 in I.A. No.219 of 2021 in OS No.23 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

2. This application in IA No.219 of 2021 was filed by the defendants 1 & 2 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to de-exhibit the document marked as Ex.A.1-unregistered sale deed, dated 14.04.1993. The trial Court has allowed the said application and de-exhibited Ex.A.1 subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by the defendants 1 & 2 to the plaintiff, within a week from the date of the order.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition alleging that the application filed u/s.151 of CPC is not maintainable, but the trial Court has failed to consider the same, the defendants 1 & 2 ought to have filed an application under Order-13 Rule-3 of CPC. The defendants 1 & 2 have not raised any such objection in the cross-examination of PW.1 or in the written statement about the genuineness of Ex.A.1 and that they have also filed IA No.176 of 2019 to send the said document to the expert at Nasik Printing Press, but the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed CRP No.216 of 2020 it was also dismissed confirming the orders of the trial Court. The Ex.A.1 was executed by the General Power of Attorney holder of the pattadars and in view of the death of vendors of the petitioner, the GPA is ceased and if the Ex.A.1 is de-exhibited, nothing remains in the suit and requested to set aside the impugned orders.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and respondents/defendants. Perused the material available on record. The detailed submissions made on either side have received due consideration of the Court.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the original suit.

6. The plaintiff has filed the original suit in OS No.23 of 2003 for perpetual injunction against the defendants. After completion of pleadings, issues settled and evidence on both sides is also concluded. At this stage, when the matter is being adjourned for arguments, the defendants 1 & 2 have filed IA No.219 of 2021 u/s.151 of CPC to de-exhibit Ex.A.1-unregistered sale deed dated 14.04.1993. The said application was considered by the trial Court and Ex.A.1-unregistered sale deed was de-exhibited.

7. (i) The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the order impugned is against facts and law, liable to be set aside. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the application is filed u/s.151 of CPC and it is not maintainable when there is a specific provision in CPC. The trial Court ought to have rejected the application, since there is a relevant/specific provision under Order-13 Rule-3 CPC for de-exhibiting the documents, if any marked.

7. (ii) The second objection of the leaned counsel for the plaintiff is that the document was marked as Ex.A.1 without any objection by the defendants 1 & 2, though it is unregistered simple sale deed, defendants have cross-examined PW.1 and that earlier when the defendants have requested to refer Ex.A.1-document to Nasik Printing Press, vide IA No.176 of 2019, the trial Court has dismissed the application and in CRP No.216 of 2020 the said order was confirmed by this Court and at this belated stage, after concluding the trial, while submitting the arguments, the defendants are not entitled for the relief of de-exhibiting the document.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff relied on the principles laid in the following decisions :

(i) Javer Chand and others v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655;

(ii) Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and others, (2003) 4 SCC 161;

(iii) Tamilnadu Hyderabad Mercantilev. Sunita Bank Ltd., Industries, H