Smt. Daljeet Kaur vs Badal Malik
2022 Latest Caselaw 4328 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     C.M.P. No. 391 of 2022
                           ------

1. Smt. Daljeet Kaur

2. Sitaram Agarwal .... .... .... Petitioners Versus

1. Badal Malik

2. Manik Malik

3. Malti Mal

4. Meena Mal

5. Bablu Mal .... .... .... Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Opp. Parties :

Oral Order 03/ Dated : 21.10.2022

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that a list of documents most of which were public documents, were filed before the learned Court below but the same has not been marked as exhibit, which is not in consonance with the order of this Court passed in Parmeshwar Rana Versus Dwarika Rana; 2011 3 JCR 11 wherein direction has been given to mark the documents as exhibits and to consider its evidentiary value at the time of final hearing.

On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that without assigning any specific reason for the admissibility of these documents, the learned Court below has refused to mark as exhibits only because it was an old case.

Under the circumstances, the order refusing to mark the documents as exhibits is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Court below for passing order afresh in the light of direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1 wherein it has been held:-

"13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence-collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fallout of the above practice is this: Suppose the trial court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or the revisional court, when the same question is recanvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial court. In such a situation the higher court may have to send the case back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings.

14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration."

The evidentiary value of the documents marked as exhibit can be considered at the final stage.

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly allowed. I.A. No.7651 of 2022 is also disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit