Civil Revision No.6495 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6495 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:04.05.2009 Usha Khosla .....Petitioner Versus Arun Kumar and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. A.C. Jain, Advocate with Ms. Aparna Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Rikhi, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? -.- K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The order, which is impugned is by virtue of which three documents were removed out of consideration as sought for by the defendant. One document was a memorandum of partial partition, another was the entry in the register of Notary Public and the third document was an entry in Panjab University relating to date of birth. 2. The Court while rejecting the application filed by the defendant reserved the right to the party to contend about the admissibility of the document at the time of arguments. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that the procedure adopted by the Court was erroneous and places his reliance on the judgment of this Court in Girdhari Lal Vs. Ritesh Mahajan and another Civil Revision No.6495 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Vol.CXLII (2006-1) PLR 344. There the Court was dealing with the procedure adopted by a Rent Controller postponing the consideration of the objection regarding the relevance of some documents. While a procedure, which this Court has frowned upon could be adopted in cases where the issue relating to the relevance is so obvious that the Court shall consider it immediately so that the cross-examination of the cases on relevant issues would go unhampered. 3. There is again another situation when the Court invariably grapples with viz. the admissibility of certain documents and consideration of certain provisions of law regarding the admissibility that are not easy to deal with. In this case, the memorandum of partial partition that was sought to be introduced pertained to an objection contained under Section 49 of the Registration Act. The objection was also on the ground that it was only a copy and that the original had not been filed. The documents had merely been filed and in the face of objection, the procedure which the Court had followed was to admit them, subjecting, however, the consideration regarding the extent of admissibility to be considered at a later stage. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat JT 2001(3) SC 120 has pointed out that Courts shall not hold up proceedings on mere objections relating to the admissibility of documents and a practice that was commended was admitting documents subject to such objections as the parties raised and leaving the parties with liberty of addressing comprehensively on every objection at the time of arguments. This decision although was rendered while considering certain provisions of Criminal Procedure Civil Revision No.6495 of 2008 (O&M) -3- Code, several High Courts of this country have extended the same principle also in the matters coming within the boundaries of CPC. The admissibility relating to the documents or the relevance of the document where the Court found itself difficult to take up at the threshold shall leave the parties to urge the respective merits of their contentions at a later stage, which cannot cause any prejudice to either party. This is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for. The order of the Court below is confirmed and the civil revision petition is dismissed. (K .KANNAN) JUDGE May 04, 2009 Pankaj*