CR No.1693 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1693 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.3.2011 M/s Khurana Sales Corporation and others . . .Petitioners Versus Yash Pal Verma . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 8.2.2011 by which an application filed by the petitioners for de-exhibiting the documents Ex.A-1, A-3 to A-11 and A-16, tendered by the respondent at the time of tendering his affidavit in examination-in-chief, has been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of Order 13 Rules 3 read with Order 18 Rule (4)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), the Court is obliged to decide the objection, raised by the party at the time of tendering of document, about its mode and admissibility before making endorsement thereon. He has also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of “Girdhari Lal Vs. Ritesh Mahajan and another” 2005(2) ILR (Punjab) 597. At the same time, he has submitted that the Rent Controller has committed an error in dismissing his application by his impugned order as a result of which he cannot take this plea at any time henceforth. Last argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be quite justified. Insofar as the exhibition of document is concerned, it is now well settled that mere exhibition of document on record does not discharge the proof. The landlord, who has tendered this document is still required to prove this document in accordance with law and cannot urged that since the documents have been tendered, therefore, these are proved as well. Moreover, the objection with regard to the mode and admissibility was not taken at the time when documents were tendered but despite that the main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Court below should not have closed the doors for all times to come. In view thereof, the impugned order is hereby modified to the extent that the documents, which have been tendered by the landlord, would remain on record and as held by the Rent Controller that mere exhibition of documents does not make it a CR No.1693 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - document to be read into evidence, an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to raise an issue with regard to its admissibility and mode of prove at the time of final hearing. Revision petition is thus, disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MARCH 17, 2011 JUDGE Vivek