CR No.5868 of 2008 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.5868 of 2008 Decided on: 22.09.2009 **** Kartar Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Ravinder Chalna & Others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) The petitioner-defendant impugns the order dated 19th September, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Abohar, whereby his application to exhibit the receipts Mark ‘DA’ and Mark ‘DB’ has been dismissed. The respondent-plaintiff, who is a commission agent at Abohar, has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,92,152/- against the petitioner – a farmer. On the very first opportunity, the petitioner in his written statement has taken the plea that nothing is recoverable from him as three different crops i.e. mustard, Cauliflower and cotton crops were taken by an agent of the respondent-firm and their price value has not been adjusted by the respondent. In proof of his plea that the crops were actually taken from him by the Weighman-cum-agent of the respondent-commission agent, the petitioner in his examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination has referred to two receipts purported to have been issued to him by the said weighman-cum-agent. CR No.5868 of 2008 - 2 - Since the alleged author of the receipts has now died and the petitioner in his own deposition did not say that the receipts were signed by Parkash Singh in his presence, these receipts could not be exhibited. The trial Court has declined the petitioner’s prayer apparently under the impression as if the petitioner wants these two receipts to be admitted in evidence. Suffice it to say that mere exhibition of a document on record does not necessarily mean its admission in evidence nor it amounts to acceptance of its contents by the opposite party. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 19.09.2008 is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to re-examine himself for the limited purpose of exhibiting the receipts Mark ‘DA’ and Mark ‘DB’. This order shall, however, not be construed that the exhibited documents have been admitted in evidence or the contents thereof have been admitted. The said issue is left open, to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also pay Rs.2000/- as costs to the respondent-plaintiff and shall get only one opportunity to re-enter into the witness box for getting these receipts exhibited. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 22.09.2009 shonkar