CR No.6179 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6179 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.12.2011 Chander Mohan ...Petitioner Versus Gurjant Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Puja Chopra, Advocate for the respondent. **** Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.8.2011 (Annexure P-3), whereby the learned trial Court rejected the objection raised by the petitioner-defendant against exhibiting the document P-2, and Sale Agreement dated 19.2.2008 by the respondent-plaintiff in his evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per Part G of Chapter 1 of Volume I of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, exhibiting of P2 deserves to be de-exhibited, as it is not accompanied by the original document. He has placed reliance upon Smt.Shail Kumari vs. Smt.Saraswati Devi 2002(3) RCR (Civil) 239 and states that the trial Court ought not to have delivered the decision on the issue and should have decided the case at the earliest. CR No.6179 of 2011 (O&M) 2 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that at the time of exhibiting the document as P-2 on 7.1.2011 alongwith affidavit, no objection was raised by the petitioner-defendant. Therefore, the petitioner cannot agitate the same at this stage. Moreover, no loss has been caused to the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully. Admittedly, the agreement to sell dated 19.2.2008, was exhibited on 7.1.2011. On that date, no objection was raised by the petitioner and subsequently on 26.2.2011, the petitioner has taken objection and prayed for de-exhibiting the same. The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that the objection to any document regarding mode of proof should have been taken when the document was being tendered and before it was marked as exhibit under Order 13 Rule 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. The cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses is yet to be recorded. Otherwise, also no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner-defendant as the learned trial court has only tentatively allowed the exhibition and the same is subject to the decision of the objection at the time of final arguments. Afore-cited case law is distinguishable, because as per clear provisions of Section 13 Rule 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no objection has been raised by the other party at the time of exhibiting P-2, and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the other party, as the trial court tentatively allowed the documents as exhibits subject to the decision of the objection at the time of final arguments. CR No.6179 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Keeping in view the fact that the document stands exhibited without any protest and the final decision on the same regarding admissibility of the documents in evidence is yet to be taken by the learned trial court, this Court feels that no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. As such, the present revision petition fails and the same is dismissed being bereft of any merit. 19.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE