IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.265 of 2011 In CWJC No. 10160 of 2008 With I.A. No. 1117 of 2011 In LPA No. 265 of 2011 ==================================================== Mithilesh Kumar Singh, S/o Late Ram Suraj Singh, R/o Village-Sher, P.S.-Sidhwalia, District-Gopalganj, at present resident of Mohalla-Naya Tola(Chandralok), P.S.-Kazi Mohammadpur, Town and District- Muzaffarpur. ….. Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary of Law Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, S/o Late Ram Suraj Singh, R/o Mohalla- Naya Tola (Chandrelok), P.S.-Kazi Mohammadpur (Town), District- Muzaffarpur. 3. Smt. Urmila Thakur, W/o Ram Chandre Thakur and Daughter of Late Ram Suraj Singh, R/o Village-Kamtaul, P.S.-Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga. At present residing (Retired Engineer of H.E.C.) B/409, Services Housing Co-operative, Ashok Nagar (Argora), Ranchi (Jharkhand). 4. Mrs. Geeta Sharma, W/o Dr. Mritunjay Prasad Sharma and Daughter of Late Ram Suraj Singh, R/o Village-Amarsi Bigha, P.S.-Bela, District-Gaya. At present Residing at 1854, North 23 RD ST, LARAMIE WY. 82070, USA. …….. Respondents. ==================================================== APPEARANCE: For the Appellant : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Prashant Sinha, A.C to G.P.-1. ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER - 2 - (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 10.02.2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 1117 of 2011. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 12 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 265 of 2011. This appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 15th December 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 10160 of 2008. The matter at dispute is the admissibility of a document in evidence. The appellant had filed Letters of Administration Case no. 9 of 1996 for issuance of Letters of Administration. The application was contested by the respondents. The aforesaid application was later on converted into Original Suit No. 2 of 2002. It is pending before the court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Muzaffarpur. In course of trial the defendant has produced a document dated 24th February, 1996. The appellant-plaintiff objected to its admissibility on the grounds of lack of proper stamp and want of proper attestation. On 15th May 2008 the said document has been received in evidence subject to the objection of the plaintiff-appellant. The said order of the learned trial judge dated - 3 - 15th May 2008 was challenged by the appellant in above CWJC No. 10160 of 2008. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. It is observed that admissibility of the document admitted in evidence with objection be considered at the time of final hearing of the suit. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Raghav Prasad has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the approach of the trial court as well as of the learned single Judge is contrary to law. It is the settled law that admissibility of the document should be decided at the time it is presented and the objection is raised. In support of the submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Rattan V. Bajrang Lal (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1393). In the matter before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court had occasion to examine a similar situation. The Supreme Court emphasized that question of admissibility of a document must be decided at the time the objection is raised. However, in case of admission of a document subject to the objection, the Court observed “the endorsement made by the learned trial judge that “objected, allowed subject to objection”, clearly indicates that when the objection was raised it was not judicially determined and the document was merely tentatively marked and in such a situation Section 36 would not be attracted.” Thus, it is apparent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the situation where the document is received in evidence subject to the objection to be - 4 - decided at a later date/ at the time of final decision of the suit. Similar is the procedure adopted by the trial court. We see no error in the order made by the learned single Judge. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Stay of the further proceedings, if any, stands vacated. Sujit (R.M.Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran,J.)