Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Deexhibition of Documents - Main Points and Insights
Once a document has been exhibited in court, it generally cannot be deexhibited or withdrawn from evidence, unless specific legal provisions or circumstances justify it. Several cases emphasize that exhibition signifies acceptance of the document as evidence, and deexhibition requires explicit legal grounds ["Preetjot Kaur VS Hardeep Singh - Punjab and Haryana"], ["HARILAL P SHAH vs TARABEN R PUNATAR - Gujarat"], ["G. JEEVITH REDDY vs SUBISHI ENGINEERS - Telangana"].
The objection to a document's admissibility or proof must be raised prior to or at the time of its exhibition. If no objection is made during this stage, subsequent attempts to deexhibit or challenge the document are typically considered barred, especially if the document has been marked and endorsed as evidence ["Preetjot Kaur VS Hardeep Singh - Punjab and Haryana"], ["G. JEEVITH REDDY vs SUBISHI ENGINEERS - Telangana"], ["Balram Sareen VS Rajesh Bhalla - Punjab and Haryana"].
The exercise of exhibition primarily serves identification and does not necessarily amount to proof of the document's contents. The court's endorsement on a document as an exhibit does not automatically prove its genuineness or contents; these are subject to further proof and scrutiny ["HARILAL P SHAH vs TARABEN R PUNATAR - Gujarat"], ["MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ORS. vs MR. MANISH PODDAR & ANR. - Delhi"].
Photocopies or secondary evidence of documents can be admitted, but their admissibility and the possibility of deexhibition depend on compliance with legal standards, such as proper proof of original signatures or the document's authenticity. Photocopies are not automatically admissible as evidence unless properly proved or admitted ["MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ORS. vs MR. MANISH PODDAR & ANR. - Delhi"]-1100_2009), ["Veeramani Kishan Rao (Died) as per LRs vs Musuku Anjaiah and 6 Others - Telangana"].
The law permits deexhibition if a document is found to be inadmissible, irrelevant, or if it was erroneously admitted. However, once a document is admitted and marked as evidence, deexhibition is generally not permissible unless specific procedural or legal errors are identified ["G. JEEVITH REDDY vs SUBISHI ENGINEERS - Telangana"], ["A. P. Laly VS Gurram Rama Rao - Current Civil Cases"], ["Balram Sareen VS Rajesh Bhalla - Punjab and Haryana"].
Analysis and Conclusion
The consensus across the cited cases indicates that a document, once exhibited and marked as evidence, typically cannot be deexhibited unless the court finds procedural irregularities, inadmissibility, or that the document was erroneously admitted. The timing of objections is crucial; failure to object during the exhibition stage usually results in waiving the right to challenge or deexhibit the document later ["Preetjot Kaur VS Hardeep Singh - Punjab and Haryana"], ["G. JEEVITH REDDY vs SUBISHI ENGINEERS - Telangana"].
The primary purpose of exhibition is identification, and it does not equate to proof of the document's contents. Further proof is necessary unless the document is admitted as an admitted fact or is recognized as self-proving ["HARILAL P SHAH vs TARABEN R PUNATAR - Gujarat"], ["MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ORS. vs MR. MANISH PODDAR & ANR. - Delhi"].
Photocopies and secondary evidence require proper proof of authenticity; mere exhibition does not suffice for their admissibility, and they can be deexhibited if found inadmissible or improperly proved ["MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ORS. vs MR. MANISH PODDAR & ANR. - Delhi"]-1100_2009), ["Veeramani Kishan Rao (Died) as per LRs vs Musuku Anjaiah and 6 Others - Telangana"].
Overall, deexhibition is permissible only under specific circumstances such as procedural errors, inadmissibility, or if the document was erroneously admitted, and not simply because the parties later object or dispute the document's authenticity ["G. JEEVITH REDDY vs SUBISHI ENGINEERS - Telangana"], ["A. P. Laly VS Gurram Rama Rao - Current Civil Cases"].
References:
In legal contexts, the term exhibition can refer to public displays of documents or films, or the marking of documents as exhibits in court proceedings. But what happens when it's time to reverse that? Can a document be deexhibited? This question arises frequently in litigation and regulatory matters, touching on statutory compliance, constitutional rights, and procedural fairness.
This blog post delves into the nuances of deexhibition, drawing from judicial precedents and statutes. We'll explore both public exhibition scenarios (like films) and court exhibit removals. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Exhibition generally means public display or presentation. As clarified in Balwinder Singh vs. Delhi Administration, exhibition means a public display to which the public is admitted, and that it can be in a public or private place depending on the context and purpose. Odyssey Communications Private LTD. VS Lokvidayan Sanghatana - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 437 Similarly, in H.R. Club, it involves making a work available for public viewing, regardless of whether the place is public or private, if a large section of the community has access. Odyssey Communications Private LTD. VS Lokvidayan Sanghatana - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 437
Deexhibition, conversely, is the lawful withdrawal or removal of such a display. It requires adherence to legal procedures. Generally, a document may be deexhibited if its original exhibition was lawful and the removal follows statutory guidelines. However, arbitrary actions can violate rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, protecting freedom of speech and expression. INDIBILITY CREATIVE PVT LTD VS GOVT OF WEST BENGAL - 2019 4 Supreme 348
For cinematograph films or similar documents, the Cinematograph Act, 1952 mandates certification and licensing. Sections 3, 4, 5A, and 5B require films to be certified by the Central Board of Film Certification before public exhibition. In Ramakrishna 70 MM theatre, the court stressed that unauthorized or unlicensed exhibition violates statutory provisions. INDIBILITY CREATIVE PVT LTD VS GOVT OF WEST BENGAL - 2019 4 Supreme 348
Deexhibition here might occur via license suspension. Under Section 6 of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954, authorities can revoke licenses, terminating exhibition lawfully. INDIBILITY CREATIVE PVT LTD VS GOVT OF WEST BENGAL - 2019 4 Supreme 348 But as noted in Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, unlawful removal or suppression of a lawfully exhibited document poses a danger to personal liberty and free speech. Odyssey Communications Private LTD. VS Lokvidayan Sanghatana - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 437
In trials, documents are marked as exhibits (e.g., Ex.PW-1/21). Deexhibition happens when they're deemed inadmissible, like photocopies or improperly admitted ones. For instance, in a Delhi High Court case, Ex.PW-1/21 being a photocopy is deexhibited and is read as Mark A. MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ORS. vs MR. MANISH PODDAR & ANR.MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ORS. vs MR. MANISH PODDAR & ANR.-1100_2009 2017_DHC_2696) MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ORS. vs MR. MANISH PODDAR & ANR.-1100_2009)
Another example: a petition was filed for demarking the document and this Court has held that the trial Court failed to decide the objection raised by the petitioner and proceeded to receive in evidence and accordingly document was ordered to be deexhibited. Jannapureddy Shiva Reddy vs Jannapureddy Thirupathi Reddy This shows courts can order deexhibition if procedural errors occur, such as admitting evidence without resolving objections.
In Lokesh Bharti vs Harish Chander, a rent agreement was listed as Ex.D1W1/L rent agreement dated 15.03.2002, which was deexhibited, illustrating routine removal of challenged documents. Lokesh Bharti vs Harish Chander
Key conditions for lawful deexhibition include:- Lawful Original Exhibition: Must have proper license or certification. Unlawful exhibitions (e.g., unlicensed premises) can be terminated, per Balwinder Singh. Odyssey Communications Private LTD. VS Lokvidayan Sanghatana - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 437- Statutory Procedures: Follow acts like Cinematograph Act or state cinema regulations. Revocation by magistrates is valid. INDIBILITY CREATIVE PVT LTD VS GOVT OF WEST BENGAL - 2019 4 Supreme 348- No Arbitrary Action: Removal infringing free speech is challengeable. In Ramakrishna 70 MM theatre, suppression beyond authority violates liberty. INDIBILITY CREATIVE PVT LTD VS GOVT OF WEST BENGAL - 2019 4 Supreme 348
If unlawfully exhibited, deexhibition is typically allowed, but must not be capricious.
Courts emphasize welfare in custody cases too, where adoption documents were scrutinized. SUSEELA VS SOURASHTRA DHARMA PARIPALANA COMMITTEE - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 3687
In partnership recovery suits, non-mention in dissolution deeds rendered agreements invalid, upholding trial dismissals. Banarsi Dass(deceased) through LRs VS Ramji Dass - 2018 Supreme(P&H) 441
In conclusion, while a document may be deexhibited under specific lawful conditions, it hinges on the exhibition's validity and removal process. Unlawful or arbitrary deexhibition risks legal challenges. Stay informed, follow procedures, and seek professional advice to navigate these complexities.
& Ors. [2023 (2) PLR 689] to contend that once the document had been exhibited, the same cannot be deexhibited and the objection qua stamp duty cannot be raised at that stage. 4. Heard. ... document including for the purpose of the STAMP ACT . ... Admittedly, the document stands tendered as evidence and had also been exhibited. ... It is an admitted case that the original document is lying attached in a file titled as ‘State V/s Hardeep Singh’. ... On a query by the Court as to whether any objection was....
Accordingly, documents mark 4/16 was exhibited as Ex.101, document mark 20/204 to 20/208 are exhibited as Exhibits No.122 to 126. Similarly document at Ex.64/40 is exhibited as Ex.141. ... Similarly, the party one who relies upon document in support of its contention has to produce as provided under Order 13 Rule 1. After production of document, the next stage would be about proving them. ... In my view no error of law has been committed consequently the same cannot be deexhibited. The impugned order fo....
The contents of the statements marked as Exhibit 67, 68 69 were to be deexhibited and discredited. Hence, this writ petition. ... Statements at Exhibit nos. 67, 68 & 69 be deexhibited. ... (iii) It is made clear that contents of the statement of Exhibit nos. 67, 68 & 69 cannot be proved through evidence of P.W. 1. ... (iv) Statement at Exhibit 70 also be deexhibited. ... ... 41) Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently and rightly submits that exhibition of a document would mean that the contents of the d....
sr' In that case, a petition was filed for demarking the document and this Court has held that the trial Court lailed to decide the objection raised by the petitioner and proceeded to receive in evidence and accordingly document was ordered to be deexhibited' p class="sub_para" left_margin="123.12 ... It appears, at a later stage the document was filed along with a leave petition and it was received allowing the application and marked as Ex.B.18 without any resistance from the plaintiff. ... Now at PaBe 4 of 5 CRI'} No.2....
Ex.PW- 1/21 being a photocopy is deexhibited and is read as Mark A. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit of PW2 (Constituted Attorney of plaintiff No. 8) has been filed.
Ex.PW- 1/21 being a photocopy is deexhibited and is read as Mark A. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit of PW2 (Constituted Attorney of plaintiff No. 8) has been filed.
Ex.PW- 1/21 being a photocopy is deexhibited and is read as Mark A. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit of PW2 (Constituted Attorney of plaintiff No. 8) has been filed.
(Deexhibited and marked as Mark PW1/2) iv) Original GPA dated 08.10.1997 is Ex.PW1/4. v) Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.1997 is Ex.PW1/5. ... Sh.Bhagwan Dass and Sh.Chaman Lal sold the entire property to one Sh.Shyam Sunder Gupta and Ms.Hina Chawla vide document Mark-A to G, all dated 10.06.1996. 3. ... It is contended that initially one Smt.Sukh Devi, the owner of the suit property being lessee of Government of India had died leaving behind her two sons namely Sh.Bhagwan Dass and Sh.Chaman Lal, in whose names the suit property was mutated on 13.08.19....
As per Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a document is proved by identifying signatures of the executant of a document by a person before whom the document is signed or the person who proves the document is proved to have regularly seen the executant signing other documents or that this witness ... who proves the document is aware of the signatures of the executant on account of regularly corresponding with the executant of the documents. ... -1 has proved on record Ex.DW1/5 to Ex.DW-1/21 whic....
(k) Ex.D1W1/J possession letter dated 24.6.2009 (l) Ex.D1W1/K WILL dated 24.6.2009 (m) Ex.D1W1/L rent agreement dated 15.03.2002, which was deexhibited
While dismissing the suit the Trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the due execution of the claimed writing dated 1.10.1966. Although another witness, Ram Parshad, was examined as PW-3; who deposed having written the document Ex:P-6 as per the dictation of the parties, however, in the cross-examination this witness deposed that no partition had taken place between the parties in his presence nor any firm was dissolved. Moreover, the said document can not be treated as a valid document. For arriving at this conclusion, the Trial Court recorded that one of ....
Even if it is otherwise admitted in evidence, the point still remains whether such a document can be asked to be deexhibited by the party objecting to it as happened in this case. There is no evidence on record to show whether the said document was properly admitted in evidence.
It is not a document, which can be accepted as a legally enforceable document. As on 20.07.1904, when Arivanantha Parathesi Swamigal had given away the property, his right, title and interest stood extinguished with respect to the property which he handed over to the Panchayatars of the Shree Varatharaja Perumal. He stood as a third party stranger to the suit property.
From original of this document on record; it is not disputed that this document in the nature of affidavit was not attested by any authority. The conduct of private respondents in preparing these documents when the petitioner returned to the matrimonial home and stayed for a short while seem to be only a clever devise to enable them to set up a plea of regular adoption by respondent No.9 and his wife. Such a document, thus, can be safely ignored as manipulated.
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
