Advocates:
['KASLIWAL AJIT D', 'LATHE B G AND VIJAYESH ATRE', '', 'AND YATISH LAAD']

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.7155 OF 2019

Cosmo Films Ltd.

= PETITIONER

VERSUS

Parenteral Drugs (India) Ltd.

= RESPONDENT/S

-----

Mr.Ajit D.Kasliwal, Advocate for Petitioner;

Mr.BG Lathe, Advocate for Respondent.

-----

CORAM : SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE,J.

DATE : 25

^th

January, 2022.

PER COURT :-

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner

and learned Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order

passed by 2^nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Vaijapur on 20.4.2019 in Special Civil Suit

No.27/2017, where he permitted exhibiting of

certain documents to which an objection was raised

by the plaintiff to the effect that these documents

do not find mention in the evidence affidavit filed

by the defendant.

2.

On 10.7.2019, this Court by a detailed

order clearly ruled on the position of law to the

(2)

effect that it is settled position of law that the

document once exhibited in the proceeding cannot be

de-exhibited and that merely granting exhibit

number to a document would not mean that the

contents of the documents are proved and it will

ultimately depend upon the litigant as how he got

those documents exhibited converted into admissible

evidence.

Based on the said principle of law, this

Court rejected the objection of the petitioner qua

Exhibits-8, 29,30 and 31. Notice was issued

restricted to Exhibit-32.

3.

As far as Exhibit-32 is concerned, it is

a copy of mail dated 13.5.2016, which has been

marked at Exhibit-32.

When the reasoning of the learned Judge

in allowing the document to be exhibited is

perused, he has recorded that the evidence

affidavit of the defendant clearly makes a

reference to an assertion which is contained in

Para 5 to the following effect, -

“5. The material supplied by the

plaintiff company to the defendant

company was of very poor quality: in the

material supplied by the plaintiff

(3)

company there were lots of issues

concerning the quality about which the

plaintiff company was informed by the

defendant company on several occasions

telephonically as well as through mails

however, no corrective measures were

taken by the plaintiff company and under

the circumstances, the material supplied

by the plaintiff company was of no use to

the defendant company. Needless to

mention that the material required by the

defendant company from the plaintiff

company

was

for

manufacturing

pharmaceutical products which requires

precision of quality failing which the

raw material is unfit for utilization.”

Thus, there is a reference to exchange of

mail by the plaintiff-company to the defendant-

company and recording the said statement contained

in the evidence affidavit, though date of the mail

is not mentioned, a copy of the e-mail produced on

record dated 13.5.2016 has been permitted to be

exhibited at Exhibit-32.

4.

Since the position of law is that mere

exhibiting the document does not prove its contents

and if at all the submission of the learned Counsel

to the effect that the document, since it is an

e-mail, must require to be proved would be

admissible in evidence only when supported with a

certificate issued under Section 65-B of the

(4)

Evidence Act, he is at liberty to raise the

objection while reading the said e-mail in evidence

by the other side.

5.

Clarifying the aforesaid position, there

is no merit in the writ petition. Resultantly, by

upholding the impugned order, the writ petition is

dismissed.

( SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE,J.)

BDV