Civil Revision No. 4254 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4254 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.7.2010 Jaswant Singh …Petitioner Versus Kulwant Singh Saini …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Respondent/plaintiff-Kulwant Singh Saini, appeared as PW.1 and photostat copies of pronotes were put to him, which were exhibited as Ex.D29 to Ex.D33. Immediately, on the next date of hearing, an application was filed by the plaintiff that the documents be de-exhibited as the same have not been proved. The trial Court, vide impugned order dated 26.5.2010 (Annexure P1), observed as under:- “...Perusal of the cross examination of the PW.1 shows that some photcopy of the pronote were admitted by him which has been exhibited as D29 to D33 but admission by the plaintiff of the photocopy of the document does not dispense with their proof. Even otherwise said PW in his examination has failed to identify signature of the person on the Civil Revision No. 4254 of 2010 2 same. It is settled position of law that mere exhibition of documents does not dispense with their proof. All that PW1 stated in his cross examination is that “the photo copy of pronote which was basis of JAL litigation are Ex.D29 to D33 executed by my family members”. So from the said statement it is evidently clear that Ex.D29 to Ex.D33 have not been proved as per law, hence they are de-exhibited and marked as Mark D1 to D5. Application disposed of accordingly. Now to come up for 10/6/2010 for remaining evidence of defendants at own responsibility”. No fault can be found with the reasoning given by the trial Court in de-exhibiting the documents being not proved. The defendant has every right to prove the documents by leading evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Others 2004(1) P.L.R. 612 to say that immediately when the documents are exhibited, an objection ought to be taken by the concerned party. It is submitted that since the objections were not taken, it will amount to waiver. Thus, the observation was made by the Hon'ble Apex Court that after considering the fair play and equity, immediately an application can be filed. Therefore, a mistake which is brought to the notice of the Court at the earliest, cannot amount to waiver on the part of the plaintiff. Civil Revision No. 4254 of 2010 3 Thus, there is no merit in the present revision petition. The petitioner is always at liberty to prove the documents by leading necessary evidence. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 13, 2010 “DK”