SBCWP NO.8325/2008– M/S JAIN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION V/S KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI AND ANR. : JUDGMENT DTD.15.7.2009 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8325/2008 M/s Jain Commercial Corporation Versus Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and anr. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.S.L.Jain, for the petitioner. Mr.M.K. Garg, for the respondents. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 15h July, 2009. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel. 2. This petition is directed against the order dtd.28.8.2008 under Order 13 Rule 4 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. whereby the learned trial Court refused to mark the documents produced by the plaintiff for which examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit was filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court on 12.8.2004. The plaintiff was also cross-examined on the said affidavit. However, since some of the documents were not marked as exhibits as stated in the said affidavit, the plaintiff filed the said application requesting the SBCWP NO.8325/2008– M/S JAIN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION V/S KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI AND ANR. : JUDGMENT DTD.15.7.2009 2/3 learned trial Court to mark the said documents as exhibits. The said application was however rejected by the learned trial Court. 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff – petitioner submits that under Rule 51 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986, it is the duty of the Court itself to mark the documents as exhibits in the manner prescribed under Rule 50 and therefore, for the fault of the Court itself for not marking these documents as exhibits, the plaintiff – petitioner cannot be punished and the petitioner had only brought this fact to the notice of the Court by the application, which however, came to be rejected by the learned trial Court. 4. There is no serious opposition from the side opposite to these submissions. 5. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears to this Court that the learned trial Court was not justified in refusing to mark the documents produced on record for which affidavit was filed by the plaintiff and he was also cross-examined for the same, as exhibits under Rule 50 and 51 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the Court to do so and having failed to do so, there was no justification for refusing to do so when such application was filed by the plaintiff. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is SBCWP NO.8325/2008– M/S JAIN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION V/S KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI AND ANR. : JUDGMENT DTD.15.7.2009 3/3 allowed and the impugned order dtd.28.8.2008 is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to mark the documents produced by the plaintiff for which affidavit was filed on 12.8.2004 as exhibits. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.143 Ss/-