The exhibition of documents in court requires prior determination of admissibility to ensure proper legal procedures are followed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH th ON THE 6 OF AUGUST, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 4914 of 2024 BHUPENDRA CHAURASIA Versus MITTHULAL ALIAS MITTHU AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Abhisehk Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondents.

ORDER The present petition is preferred by petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :

i) Impugned order dtd: 12.08.2024 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be set aside;

i) The trial court may be directed to mark exhibit in accordance with law;

iii) Costs may also be awarded.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property as narrated in the plaint. The suit has been filed on the premises that plaintiff is the owner of the property by virtue of sale deed. The defendants without having any rights are interfering in the possession of the property and the present suit was filed.

Signature Not Verified

3. Defendants filed their return statement (Annexure P-2) and denied the averments. After framing the issue, trial Court fixed the case for evidence. During the course of evidence of plaintiff- PW-2, defendants tried to exhibit a Namantran Panji of 24.05.1982 (Annexure P-3) to which the plaintiff is not a party and the same is being forced upon him by means of exhibition during his cross-exmaination. The plaintiff objected the same, but learned trial Court without considering the legal position in regard to the exhibition of said document, permitted the same and marked the document as exhibit vide order dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-1).

4. Being aggrieved by impugned order, petitioner filed this petition and submitted that the basic principle of law is that the exhibition is not a mechanical process and the same should be result of judicial application of mind of presiding judge. Learned trial Court has opined a new principle of law that proving, relevance, admissibility are not interconnected with each- other and work in independent spheres of law. A document is permitted to be exhibited in law only when the document is proved and therefore, the same is exhibited over the witness who is party to the same and cannot be permitted to be done in a mechanical manner. Hence, prayed for dismissal of order passed by learned trial Court.

5. None present for the respondents though served.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RVE Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr. 2003 Supreme (SC) 994 in which Apex Court has held in para 18 that:-

Signature Not Verified " The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit."

7. Counsel for petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Pawan Kumar Pathak vs. Mohan Prasad in WP No.1760/2015 dated 15.04.2015 in which it is h