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…!
The principle that documents cannot be marked after the trial has commenced or after the evidence has been closed is reinforced by rulings indicating that late attempts to introduce or de-mark documents are generally barred unless exceptional circumstances exist or the objections were not properly raised earlier.
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the heat of a civil trial, parties often scramble to introduce crucial documents as exhibits. But what happens when the plaintiff wants to mark a document after the trial has commenced? This common question—document cannot be marked by the plaintiff after the commencement of trial—raises critical issues of procedural fairness, evidence admissibility, and judicial oversight. Understanding this can prevent costly mistakes in litigation.
This post breaks down the legal principles, drawing from rulings and case law. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The marking of a document as an exhibit is merely a and does not automatically mean it's admitted into evidence. Courts must —covering , , , and more—at the time of marking. A plaintiff cannot unilaterally mark a document post-trial commencement without the court's prior ruling. Deferring this indefinitely risks inadmissible evidence tainting the proceedings.
As held: The act of marking a document as an exhibit is procedural and does not automatically imply its admissibility in evidence.
Here are the core rules:
Marking identifies a document for reference but requires for admission. Courts check:- .- to issues.- .
Failure here keeps it provisional. In , the clarified: marking subject to objection is procedural, but courts must rule promptly to avoid mechanical acceptance.
Objections on or go to marking stage. If unmarked or objected to without decision, admissibility lingers. However, once marked with scrutiny, it's final—late challenges often fail.
without review makes it tentative. Parties can later contest, but this isn't ideal. Courts risk appeals if inadmissible docs sway judgments.
Raise immediately:- Improper stamping/.- Lack of .
Deferred objections prolong trials, which courts discourage. Best practice: Record objections at marking, decide finally at judgment.
From case law: Objections relating to the admissibility of a document, such as insufficient , should be raised at the time of marking; raising objections later is generally not permissible.
While strict, exceptions exist:
Electronic Evidence: Absence of certificate is curable; docs can be marked anytime during trial. In a sexual assault case, courts allowed CD marking post-evidence start via supplementary charge sheet. SANTHOSH SHET S/O SRINIVAS SHET P. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2024 397 The absence of a certificate for electronic evidence is a and does not invalidate trial proceedings.
Delay Condonation: Courts may allow late filings for justice's sake, with costs. E.g., in a title declaration suit, delayed Rent Control docs were permitted, recalling witnesses for marking. The delay in filing documents can be condoned to meet the ends of justice.
Unregistered/Stamps Issues: Unregistered deeds can't be marked for but may for if impounded. Xerox copies of unstamped family arrangements are inadmissible for core claims like partition shares. D. Rajkumar VS Rajeswari - 2021 2977 A document, which requires and , if the same was not done, cannot be received and marked as Exhibit.
Proof Failures: Even marked docs fail without attesting witnesses or execution proof, especially if denied. Signatures need separate marking; court comparisons alone insufficient. Ravindra VS T. Parameshwara Hegde - 2018 679
These show flexibility but underscore: post-trial marking demands strong justification. notes plaintiffs marking pre-trial lists, contrasting post-commencement hurdles.
Generally, plaintiffs cannot mark documents after trial starts without court approval on admissibility. This upholds trial integrity, preventing surprises. Key takeaways:- Marking is procedural; admission needs judicial nod. - Object early on stamp/.- Exceptions for curable defects or justice ends exist but are narrow.
Stay proactive in evidence management. For tailored advice, engage legal experts. References include , M. REVANNA VS ANJANAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. - 2019 2 Supreme 435, , and others cited.
#EvidenceLaw #TrialProcedure #LegalInsights
As a general rule, where the witness denies the document, it cannot be marked through that witness. (Gabo Singho v. Karunawathie [2012] BLR 72) However, this is not an absolute rule. ... Perera [2007] 1 Sri LR 208, the document in question, though listed in an additional list filed after the commencement of the trial, had been referred to in the replication, and an issue had also been raised based on it. On appeal, the District Court was directed to allow the document to be m....
Thereafter the GPA holder of the defendants has been examined as D.W.2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.16. The trail Court has considered I.A. ... The plaintiff has not placed any document that he had requisite funds to perform his part of contract as on the date of suit. ... To prove the above issues the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and also examined one Sri. N.R. Jaishankar as P.W.2. ... 7.The trail Court has held tha....
The plaintiff has been examined as PW-1 and has marked Exhibits A-1 to A-9. ... Learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the said Ex.A2 and Exs.A3 to A9 cannot be marked or taken into evidence because they are unstamped. ... 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 pro....
The plaintiff has been examined as PW-1 and has marked Exhibits A-1 to A-9. ... Learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the said Ex.A2 and Exs.A3 to A9 cannot be marked or taken into evidence because they are unstamped. ... 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 pro....
This cannot give a right in favour of the petitioner to contend that after the commencement of evidence there cannot be production of supplementary charge sheet. ... It is not that the document would not be entertainable at all, as at any time during the trail a certificate can be produced. He would contend that the petitioner has indulged in heinous act of sexual assault on the student, who was at that point in time 14 years old, being her teacher. ... of the contents of the “original” docume....
There are some instances when a document cannot be allowed to be marked even subject to proof without first proving certain facts. ... The authenticity of a document cannot be proved by the mere production of the original of the document. ... Where the party producing the document fails to prove its authenticity as required in a particular case, the document cannot be used in evidence. ... Where the answer is in the negative, the #....
It is further seen that during the entire trail, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff but for the reasons known to it, still the plaintiff has not placed these bills on record. ... The plaintiff got marked the documents which were shown in the list of documents along with the plaint. ... Gupta Building Material Store, 2013 LawSuit (SC) 171. reported in 2013 LawSuit (SC) 171 dtd. 27/2/2013 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the perusal of the materials placed....
As per settled principle of law the defence which is not raised in the pleading cannot be looked into in the later stage either during the trail or the arguments and the said defense cannot be looked into. ... As against the evidence placed by the plaintiff, one of the persons of the defendant got examined as D.W.1 and copy of the quotation was marked as Ex.D.1 authorization letter as marked as Ex.D.2, copy of the Vat certificate is marked as Ex.D.3 and work order as ....
P1 to P17 were marked and on the side of Plaintiffs RW1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R22 were marked. In addition, Exs.C1 to C3 were also marked. ... .9. ... Viswanatha Chettiar (dead) and others), 1st Defendant cannot seek the protection under Sec.9 of CTP Act. 1st Defendant had not produced any document to show her continued tenancy after 1984. ... Pointing out that first defendant has not produced any document to show that she continued to be tenant even after 1984, the lower Appell....
BUT THE SAID DOCUMENT IS NOT MARKED IN THIS CASE AS IT IS OBJECTED FOR MARKING THE DOCUMENT. ... � With regard to reasoning by trail court that the said document is not marked in this case as it not produced the said Irrevocable lease agreement and the said document is not marked in this case as it is objected for marking the document. ... Plaintiff has relied on 38 documents which are exhibited ad #HL....
Copy of the document cannot be marked before the Court. 6. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the trial Court has erred in holding that the document sought to be marked is an unregistered and unstamped document and cannot be permitted to be marked. No such family arrangement took place between the parties. A document, which requires stamp duty and registration, if the same was not done, cannot be received and marked as Exhibit and the petition is liable to be dismissed. The reliance on the document is not to establish title, but only to rely ....
The respondents who are defendants in the suit have filed Exchange Deed dated 14.02.1997 which is an unregistered document to receive in their evidence. At that time, the respondent/plaintiff raised an objection that it was an unregistered document therefore it cannot be marked. The trial Court has permitted to mark the Exchange deed dated 14.2.1997 holding that the said document was impounded and therefore it is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes only to the limited extent of the schedule property.
It is in this regard, learned Counsel for the appellant in his argument relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.C. Purushothama Reddiar –vs S.Perumal reported in AIR 1972 SC 608 wherein he drew the attention of this Court at paragraphs18 and 19 of the judgment, which read as below: “18. Admittedly, the plaintiff has got marked the said document as Ex.P-1, however, none of the signatures found on the said document was marked as exhibit by him. Before leaving this case is necessary to refer to one of the contentions taken by Mr. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel fo....
In view of the specific finding with regard to the suspicious circumstances and the proof regarding the due execution of the document, this Court has no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. Apart from failure to examine one of the attesting witnesses, the trail Court also found that the original Will came to be filed only after the completion of evidence by the plaintiff side and that there was no explanation for the long delay in registering the document under Ex.B36 after it was allegedly executed by the father Ponniah Nadar.
It is in the course of their evidence, they tried to produce the unregistered Panchayat Parikath dated 05.10.2008 to substantiate their case of partition. It held that the document is a compulsorily registerable document and therefore, it passed the impugned order impounding the document and also holding that it is inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and non-registeration. The learned counsel for the plaintiff objected for marking the said document on the ground that it is not properly stamped and it is not registered and therefore, it cannot be marked. The Tria....
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
