Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupendra Chaurasia vs Mitthulal Alias Mitthu on 6 August, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16813
1 MP-4914-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 6 th 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16813
2 MP-4914-2024
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:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16813
3 MP-4914-2024
" 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 held that
objection relating to the proof of document of which admissibility is not in
dispute must be taken and judicially determined when it is marked as exhibit.
It is also held that whether document is admissible or inadmissible in the
matter which should always be ruled upon at the time when the document is
being proved or the question asked to the witness. Such practice and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16813
4 MP-4914-2024
procedure is fair to both the parties.
8. In the case of Narain and Others vs. State of M.P. and Ors. 1996 JLJ
509 in para 3 it has been held that:-
"3. I take this opportunity to mention another fact which has
come to the notice of this Court. When the document is sought to
be proved, it is not proved generally in accordance with law.
Provisions of section 47/67 of the Indian Evidence Act are
completely ignored. What the Courts do is that documents sought
to be proved are shown to the witness and exhibits are put without
any evidence is laid, without pointing out about the person who
executed it and whether the document was in his hand is signed
before him or executed before him or without asserting that the
witness is acquainted with his writing or signatures, as the case
may be. The Courts can mark exhibit immediately it is proved in
accordance with law. Documents are to be exhibited when they are
proved in accordance with law. They cannot be exhibited merely
because, they are shown to the witness. If the law is not followed
in this connection, it creates problems to the parties as well as to
the higher Courts with respect to proof or disproof of the
document."
9. On perusal of the impugned order, it was found that learned trial
Court has rejected the objection raised by the petitioner and held that
admissibility and exhibition, both are different thing. It is not always
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16813
5 MP-4914-2024
necessary that documents must be exhibited by the witnesses who are party
of the documents.
10. Considering the above principle, it is found that trial Court has
committed error in exhibited the documents without deciding the
admissibility of the documents. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that impugned order passed by trial Court is bad in the eye of law
and is hereby set aside. Learned trial Court is directed that firstly, decide the
admissibility of the impugned documents and then exhibit it, if it is found
admissible in accordance with law.
With aforesaid directions, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*VJ*
