Civil Revision No. 7234 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7234 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision. 30.11.2011 Bhim Sain Jain .... Petitioner Versus M/s Parshadi Lal Vijay Kumar and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.28326-CII of 2011 For the reasons given in the miscellaneous application bringing on record of the description of documents mark J, M and N and Annexures 1 to 17 is allowed. CR No. 7234 of 2011 The petitioner Bhim Sain Jain has challenged the order dated 22.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa by way of this revision petition, vide which his application for exhibiting the documents mark J,M and N and Annexures 1 to 17 has been dismissed. Civil Revision No. 7234 of 2011 --2-- Bhim Sain Jain, petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,18,180/- as principal and interest against the respondents. In the said suit, while appearing as PW-10, Bhim Sain Jain, petitioner tried to prove some documents. The court objected to putting exhibit marks of those documents and consequently the plaintiff filed an application for allowing him to exhibit those documents. It is claimed in the application that Bhim Sain Jain could not even complete his examination-in-chief and the same was deferred. It is further claimed that three documents were only introduced in the evidence and Annexures 1 to 17 were not even marked. It is further claimed that these documents are very much necessary because they would go to the root of the controversy between the parties and would help the court in deciding the same. Therefore, it was prayed that the documents may be exhibited in the evidence of the plaintiff. The application was opposed by the respondents, who have alleged that it is a settled principle of law that a document could be exhibited in evidence either when the same is per se admissible or when the same is legally got proved under the provisions of the Evidence Act. It was further averred that the plaintiff wanted to exhibit certain documents without getting the same legally proved, which is not permissible under law. They , therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application. Civil Revision No. 7234 of 2011 --3-- Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application observing that at the time of the evidence of the applicant on 1.4.2009, objection was raised by the court regarding exhibition of documents on the grounds that the same were not per se admissible and the same were not proved legally. Learned trial court has further observed that an opportunity was granted to the applicant to show law points regarding exhibition of those documents at the final stage, but the applicant has failed to show any law point regarding the said fact and, therefore, the application was found deserving dismissal and was dismissed. I have heard Shri Gurcharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. It appears that learned trial court has postponed the decision about the exhibiting of the documents to the final stage of the suit, which is not permissible in law. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in R.V.I. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesasraswami & V.P. Temple and others 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 705 that objection to the admissibility of the document in evidence should be decided at the time when the document is tendered in evidence. It is held to help both the parties because for the party objecting to the document, the inadmissible evidence would be kept out of the record and for the party tendering the document, it will help him by showing that the document is not proved in the manner it is sought to be proved and the said party could cure the defect and may not remain under the wrong impression that the document stands admitted. Civil Revision No. 7234 of 2011 --4-- It does not become clear as to whether learned trial court has rejected the documents vide the impugned order or has just only postponed the decision to the final stage of the suit. As learned trial court has not considered the documents individually to find out if they are per se admissible or could be proved by the plaintiff only, it cannot be said that the question of admissibility of the documents stands decided vide the impugned order. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The revision petition is consequently allowed and learned trial court is directed to consider the documents in the light of submissions of the parties and to decide about their admissibility before proceeding further with the trial. 30.11.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE