Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2017/12/leading-judgment-on-exhibition-of.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:02:52+00:00

Document:
The question presented in these cases require us to resolve two conflicting lines of precedents on the one hand, as the Court stress that "it is necessary for Court to decide about admissibility of documents before they are exhibited in evidence". On the other, some of the learned Judges of this Court have no less categorically said that admissibility of evidence and proof of document should be reserved until judgment in the case is given.
miscarriage of justice and expedite trial, which is the dire need of the time.
The objection to the admissibility or relevancy of evidence contained in the affidavit of evidence filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 of C.P.C. can be admitted at any stage reserving its resolution until final judgment in the case as held in Ameer Trading Corpn. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. (supra).
filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs). The admissibility has been objected by the petitioners (original defendants). It was the principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the objection to the admissibility of these documents which were mainly books which refer to religious practice of a particular set, are so voluminous that it is not possible for the petitioners to determine which document should be made subject of cross-examination and which may not, having regard to the fact, the Court has exhibited the said documents tentatively subject to proof.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before the learned single Judge that the cross-examination as regards all documents would be fruitless, in case it is eventually held that the documents are inadmissible. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel was that it was imperative and also in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law that the admissibility of these documents ought be decided at the stage at which the objection to their being exhibited is taken.
certain allegedly defamatory statements. The petitioner therein has objected to the admissibility and relevance of the evidence tendered by the respondent in the examination-in-chief by way of affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("C.P.C." for short). The trial Court ruled that the question whether or not a particular statement is relevant or admissible cannot be gone into before cross-examination of the witness and can be considered finally at a later stage.
6. Being aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge and pressed into service the grounds similar to those in Writ Petition No.1902/2005. According to the learned counsel, pending decision as to the admissibility and relevance of the statements in the affidavit of evidence, it was difficult for the petitioner (original defendant) to decide whether to cross-examine the witness as to those statements, which were objected to as inadmissible.
Durgashankar v. Babubhai, 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. Babubhai 576 and the other rendered by Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J. in Bharat R. Desai v. Naina M. Bhal 2004 (2) Bom.C.R.
695. In these cases, having regard to the provisions of Order XIII and Order XVIII of C.P.C. the two learned single Judges have held that while allowing the parties to lead evidence in the form of affidavits, if objected to, the admissibility of documents must be decided by the Court before the documents are exhibited in evidence and that decision cannot be postponed to a later stage such as the final disposal of the case. These judgements relied upon the judgements of the Supreme Court referred to therein.
8. The other view relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in both these petitions was as reflected in the decisions of a learned single Judge of this Court in Boman P. Irani v. Manilal P. Gala, AIR 2004 Bom.
Anr. (Notice of Motion No.1609 of 2005 in Admiralty Suit No.54 of 1999) decided on 24.6.2005 (unreported).
9. Having regard to the conflicting views of the learned single Judges of this Court and having regard to the importance of question, learned single Judge of this Court (Shri S.A.Bobde, J.) found it necessary to refer the following question for decision by a larger bench in accordance with Rule 7 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules.
deferred to a later stage?"
10. Before turning to the question referred, it is necessary to recapitulate the rival submissions canvased before us.
11. Mr.D.S.Parikh, learned senior counsel appearing with Mrs.Sujata Mahadgad for the petitioner (in W.P.No.623/05) in his well search submissions reiterated the view taken by the learned single Judges in the cases of Durgashankar (supra) and Bharat R. Desai (supra) and urged that the provisions of Order XIII of C.P.C. and the Civil Manual are indicative of the legal position that the objection to the admissibility, relevancy or proof of documents produced in evidence should be decided at the time when such documents are tendered in evidence and should not be left for decision at the stage of final arguments in the suit.
12. Mr.Parikh submitted that the Supreme Court has held in the case of R.V.E. Venkatchalla Gounder v. Arulmighu Viswesaraswamy and V.P.Temple and Anr., Anr.
on the question of admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend the document being endorsed as admitted or not admitted in the evidence.
cross-examination and re-examination of the witness. In his submission, after the Commissioner records the cross-examination and re-examination of the witness, including the objections raised by either party during the course of such examination, the Commissioner submits his report to the court. Such objections have to be decided by the Court "at the stage of arguments" as provided in the proviso to Order XVIII Rule 4(4) of C.P.C.
14. Mr.Parikh, after having described the role of provision of Order XVIII Rule 4 of C.P.C., went on to reiterate that it is a settled principle of law that question of admissibility should be decided then and there. He pressed into service the views expressed by Wardroof and Amirali in Law of Evidence 17th Edition (Volume 1 Page 674) to buttress his submissions.
15. Mr.Parikh also referred to some of the judgments of the Privy Council, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts including this Court in support of his submission, the detailed reference of which at this stage is not necessary since reference to them is being made in the later part of this judgment.
exclusion of evidence at the stage when the objection is raised would not only save time but expedite disposal of the suits or proceedings. He submits that if the decision on the objection as to admissibility or mode of proof of documentary evidence and relevancy of oral and documentary evidence is allowed to be postponed to stage of judgment then in that event public policy would clearly be flouted.
(supra) does not take into account public policy of excluding evidence which is irrelevant and inadmissible. He, thus, supported the submission canvassed by Mr.Parikh.
18. The aforesaid submission canvassed by Mr.Parikh and Mr.Kotwal are supported by M/s. V.R.Dhond and M.H.Advani.
19. Mr.S.G.Aney, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr.S.V.Mhatre in his usual persuasive manner supported the view taken by two learned single Judges of this Court in the case of Boman P. Irani (supra) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (supra), contending that their views are based on Supreme Court judgments one in Bipin Shantilal Panchal and other in State v. Navjot Sandhu (cited supra) and shall go a long way in curtailing delay in disposal of suits.
He submits that this judgment binds all subordinate courts including this Court.
relevancy of oral and documentary evidence tendered in the suit.
22. The aforesaid submissions canvassed by Mr.Aney are supported by Mr.N.Y.Gupte, learned counsel appearing in the companion matter.
23. Mr.Z.T.Andhyarujina, learned counsel appearing for the defendants in Testamentary Suit No.19/1999 tried to carve out a middle path contending that there is no mandate in law that the objections must be decided at a particular stage. However, in his submission, generally, it is desirable that the objections must be decided at the earliest. He submits that in some deserving cases involving complicated questions of law, it may, however, be desirable that the decision on the objection may be deferred to a later stage. He, thus, submits that practical approach must be adopted by the courts. He submits that while deciding the issue as to whether to hear objections to evidence immediately or to defer such decision, the courts must consider the effect of such decision both on the party producing the evidence and other parties to the proceeding.
many. For instance, it enables the party producing the evidence to know whether it will be able to prove a fact based on the evidence produced, or whether he would be required to produce further or other evidence. It also enables the party cross-examining the witness to know whether or not he is required to cross-examine the witness on a particular document produced or a statement made in the affidavit of evidence. In the event, party elects to cross-examine on such document he will no longer be entitled to raise any objection to the same. On the other hand, if he does not cross-examine the witness on such document, and the document is eventually admitted into evidence, the same would remain unrebutted. Deferring the ruling on objections also works unfairly upon the party producing the evidence, as he has no opportunity to introduce fresh evidence, in the event of the evidence produced being held to be inadmissible.
discretion of the Judge trying the suit.
26. Before embarking upon the rival contentions of the parties, we may notice relevant statutory provisions.
27. In order to understand and appreciate this question referred; and to come to the conclusion as to what proper answer should be to this question, few relevant statutory provisions of C.P.C., Civil Manual need to be noticed at the outset.
Rule 3 of Order XIII of C.P.C. provides that "The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection.
and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Judge.
thereof has been substituted for the original under the next following rule, the particulars aforesaid shall be endorsed on the copy of the endorsement thereon shall be signed or initialled by the Judge.
document as having been properly admitted in evidence unless non-compliance with this rule has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
inadmissible in evidence.- Where a document evidence.
Bombay City Civil Court the endorsement may be signed by such officer as the Principal Judge may authorise in this behalf.
admissibility of such documents shall be subject to the orders of the Court.
recorded by him and decided by the Court at the stage of arguments.
Order 26 shall apply to the issue, execution and return of such commission under Order 18 rule 4.
(1.8) Order 26 rule 16-A provides for the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner when the question put to a witness is objected by his pleader.
Paragraph 552(1). All documents tendered in evidence shall be accompanied by a list in the form given as Nos.5 in Appendix of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure.
28. Having said so, in order to answer the question referred, it is also necessary to examine what is the effect of amendment made by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 whereby Order XVIII Rule 4 has been amended. Before the aforesaid provision of amended Rule 4 of Order XVIII is taken into consideration, it will be necessary to consider the brief background which resulted in amendment of the said Rule 4 of Order XVIII.
witness in the form of an affidavit.
It was, therefore, felt that the Commissioner who was empowered to record statements of witnesses under Order XXVI under certain exceptional circumstances, should be given the power to exclusively record the evidence of witnesses. This was taken into consideration in the Bill which was submitted in 1997 and, accordingly, the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 was passed and section 27 of the said Amendment Act of 1999 brought the amendment in Order XVIII Rule 4.
throughout the country and, subsequently, the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 was brought into force on 1st July, 2002 and Order XVIII, Rule 4 was amended by virtue of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, S.12(b). In Order to examine the effect and purpose of the amendment which was made in 2002, it may be necessary to briefly examine the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 so that the intention of the Legislature can be ascertained by the amendment which was brought into force in 2002 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act of 2002. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, by Section 27, amended Order XVIII, Rule 4 in the following manner.
witness of his examination-in- chief shall be given by affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence.
personal direction and superintendence of the judge.
under sub-rule (3) shall be paid by the Court or by the parties summoning the witness as may be prescribed by the High Court.
submit the same to the court appointing such commissioner.
their statements to be recorded on commission under rule 4A of Order XXVI."
Provided that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed alongwith affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the Court.
evidence taken under it shall form part of the record of the suit.
recording of evidence before the Commissioner shall be recorded by him and decided by the Court at the stage of arguments.
applicable, shall apply to the issue, execution and return of such commission under this rule."
by expanding the powers of the Commissioner which are given under Order XXVI and further amendment to Order XIX, Rules 1 and 2 gives ample power to the Commissioner to record the evidence. At the same time, since the Commissioner is not competent to decide the question of proof and admissibility of documents and evidence, discretion is given to the Court, either to decide this issue before sending the matter to the Commissioner for recording of cross- examination or decide this issue after the report is submitted by the Commissioner. It will have to be noted here that if the objects and reasons of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act are noticed, it can be seen that the entire procedure prescribed for hearing and disposal of the suits has been overhauled and, therefore, the Commissioner is supposed to give a report within a period of sixty days and the period for extension of time which is to be given to the Commissioner has to be by recording reasons by the Court.
VII Rule 14 wherein it is provided that the plaintiff shall produce documents which are in his possession in support of his claim along with the plaint and also state which document is not in his possession and further state, where possible, in whose possession and power it is. Sub-clause (3) provides that any document which ought to have been produced by the plaintiff along with the plaint is not so produced then it shall not be permitted without the leave of the Court to be received in evidence at the hearing of the suit. Similar amendment was made in the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1-A which is a provision regarding filing of Written Statement by the defendant. In order to give effect to these amendments consequential amendments have been made. Consequently, Order XIII Rule 1 has been amended. Order XVIII Rule 19 states that the Court may, instead of examining the witnesses in open court, direct that their statements may be recorded on commission under Rule 4-A of Order XXVI. Order XXVI Rule 4-A states that the Court may direct the Commissioner to record the evidence of any person resident within the local limits of its jurisdiction.
to be produced by the plaintiff and by the defendant along with the plaint or written statement. The original documents are to be produced before the settlement of issues under Order XIII. Notice to admit documents is to be given under Order XII and under Rule 2-A of Order XII, the document is deemed to be admitted if not denied after service of notice to admit documents. Under Order XIII Rule 3, the Court has a power to reject the irrelevant or inadmissible documents.
considered and decided by the Court?
admissibility or relevancy of evidence contained in the affidavit filed under Order XVIII rule 4 of C.P.C. should be considered and decided by the Court?
36. In order to understand and appreciate the reframed questions and to come to a conclusion as to what the proper answers to the questions should be, it is necessary to look at some of the relevant judgments holding field.
A.Devasikamani Goundar v. Andamuthu Goundar) and AIR 1957 Andhra Pradesh 60 (N.S.Sastri v. Goundar N.S.Sastri N.Lakshmidevamma) .
held that the objection to the mode of proof must be taken before document is marked and not in appeal for first time. Where the objection to be taken is not that the document is in itself inadmissible but that the mode of proof put forward is irregular or insufficient, it is essential that the objection should be taken at the trial before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record. A party cannot lie by until the case comes before a Court of appeal and then complain for the first time of the mode of proof.
determine the matter judicially as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an Exhibit in the case.
proof as would be regular."
marked as an exhibit in the case and where a document has been inadvertently admitted without the Court applying its mind as to the question of admissibility, the instrument could be said to have been admitted in evidence with a view to attracting S.36."
AIR 1966 SC 1457 and Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji (supra) reiterated that the objection to be taken at trial before document is marked as an 'exhibit' and admitted to record. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court also referred to Sarkar on Evidence 15th Edition, page 1084; wherein it is stated that if copies of the documents are admitted without objection in the trial Court, no objection to their admissibility can be taken afterwards in the court of appeal.
44. In the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, AIR 1971 SC 1865, the Apex Court ruled that mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with its proof.
Rai AIR 1926 Cal. 752, the Court ruled that where there is any objection to the admissibility of an evidence, a final decision on the objection must be recorded before the Court proceeds to judgment.
46. The weight of the aforesaid authorities suggests that the objection to the admissibility of evidence should be raised by the objector and decided by the Court at the earliest opportunity. The same view has been reiterated by the learned single Judges of this Court in Bharat R. Desai v. Naina M. Bhal (supra) and Durgashankar v. Babubhai (supra).
47. We now propose to proceed to refer to the judgments of the Apex Court taking little different view on the very same issue while dealing with the case arising out of criminal trial.
objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration.
proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed."
49. The aforesaid view finds support in another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State v. Navjot Sandhu (supra) arising out of criminal trial.
50. While interpreting Rule 4 of Order XVIII, the other amendments also have to be kept in mind and over and above that, it has to be borne in mind that the intention of the Legislature was to curtail the time consumed by the Court in the process of recording of evidence. In Ameer Trading Corpn. Ltd v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 702, the Apex Court Ltd.
while interpreting the said provision has taken into consideration Heydon's rule. The Apex Court has made the following observations.
doctrine of suppression of mischief rule as adumbrated in Heydon's case [(1584) 3 Co Rep 7a : 76 ER 637] shall apply. Such an amendment was made by Parliament consciously and, thus, full effect thereto must be given." "22. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol.
could have otherwise covered the field. (See for example, Parayankandiyal eravath kanapravan kalliani Amma v. K. Devi [(1996) 4 SCC 76 : AIR 1996 SC 1963]; Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [AIR 1955 SC 661] and Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana [(1990) 2 SCC 71]"
demeanour of any witness while under examination. The court would have the benefit of the observations if made by the Commissioner."
construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is to "both" sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it.
53. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the C.P.C. or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.
tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable- Justice is the goal of jurisprudence processual, as much as substantive. (See Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, 1975 (1) SCC 774).
57. The Court must always be anxious to do justice and prevent victories by way of technical knock-outs. But how far that concept can be stretched in the context of the amendments brought to the C.P.C. and in the light of the mischief that was sought to be averted is a question that has to be seriously considered. Sometimes even the procedure would be considered as mandatory, no doubt, retaining the power in Court in a proper case to exercise the jurisdiction to take out the rigour of that provision or to mitigate genuine hardship.
58. With the above preface, we propose to answer the questions referred hereinabove.
endorsement signed or initialled by the Judge amounts to admission of the document in evidence. Rule 6 contemplates endorsements on the documents rejected as inadmissible in evidence. An objection to the admissibility of the document should be raised before endorsement is made and the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the question of admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend the document being endorsed as admitted or not admitted in evidence.
60. Chapter XXVII of the Civil Manual also deals with the matters pertaining to the "RECORDS" of the Court and under the heading "DOCUMENTS" it deals with the procedure pertaining to acceptance of documents on record and the manner in which they are to be exhibited or rejected in the course of trial.
provisions of law contained in Rules 4 and 6 of Order XIII read with Para-524 of the Civil Manual. In fact, provisions of law contained in Rule 4 are to be read with Rule 6 of Order XIII of C.P.C. and cannot be considered to be referable to two different stages. The question of exhibiting the document under Rule 4 can arise only if the document is found to be admissible in evidence and in case it is found to be not admissible, the same is to be rejected in terms of Rule 6 of Order XIII read with para-524 of Civil Manual. There is no provision enabling the Court to postpone the objection regarding admissibility or proof of document, as such one can safely rule that the question as to admissibility of document should be decided at it arises and should not be reserved until the judgment of the case is given.
of the person, who hears it. It creates atmosphere of prejudice affecting fair trial. It may, unconsciously, be regarded by judicial minds as corroboration of some piece of evidence legally admissible and thereby obtain for latter quite undue weight and significance.
63. In order to prevent inadmissible evidence going on record,the opponent or adverse party can always raise an objection to the admissibility of the document. The question is: at which stage such objection is to be raised? To answer this question, let us find out various stages provided in the Code to raise an objection to the admissibility of the documents.
64. Order VII deals with construction of the plaint. Rule 14 thereof provides for production of documents on which plaintiff sues along with list of other documents relied upon in support of the claim. This is a first opportunity in the lis to the plaintiff to produce documents on record.
defendant appears and files written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 in which defendant can admit or deny the documents filed by the plaintiff. This is a first opportunity to the defendant to deny or admit the documents. Rule 8-A thereof cast duty on defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed by him. Rules relating to a written statement by a defendant apply to a written statement filed in answer to a counter claim in view of Rule 6-G of Order VIII.
66. Under Order XIII Rule 1, one more opportunity is available to the parties to produce documentary evidence at or before settlement of issues. Order 12 Rule 2 provides for notice to admit documents calling upon the opponent to admit documents. This is an additional stage to admit or deny or object to the admissibility of the document. Rule 2A thereof provides for deemed admission, if documents are not denied within stipulated time-frame after service of notice to admit documents.
67. The procedure for rejecting or exhibiting the document which is produced in the course of evidence is prescribed under Order XIII Rules 3 and 4 respectively.
provides that the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls the witness for evidence; provided that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed along with the affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the Court. At this stage, one more opportunity is provided to the party to produce documents.
69. The procedure to lead evidence in the form of affidavit under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the C.P.C. and to translate it into admissible evidence has been elaborately stated in the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in F.D.C. Ltd. v. Federation of Medical Representatives Association India, 2003 (3) Mh.L.J.
India 327 = AIR 2003 Bombay 371.
of the record of the case, the opponent, at this stage, must raise an objection to the admissibility and proof of the documents which the Court has to decide by a judicial order.
71. The admissibility of the document in evidence may be broadly classified into three classes- (i) that objection to the document which is sought to be proved is itself insufficiently stamped and the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of the document; (ii) where the objection does not dispute admissibility of document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient; and (iii) the objection that the document which is sought to be proved is ab initio inadmissible in evidence.
(supra) Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, section 36 comes into operation. Once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the trial Court itself or to a Court of Appeal or Revision to go behind that order. such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction. Similar view is expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra); wherein it is made clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document, the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further.
record subject to objection so as to avoid the rigour of section 36 of the Stamp Act.
opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence.
75. If the objection to the proof of document is not decided and the document is taken on record giving tentative exhibit, then the right of the cross-examiner is seriously prejudiced. Once the document is used in cross-examination, then the document gets proved and can be read in evidence as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Janki Devi v. M/s.Juggilal Kamlapat,1971 (1) SCC 477. Kamlapat If the cross-examiner decides not to cross-examine based on unexhibited document and, ultimately, at the fag end of the trial, the document is held to be admissible and proved, then, the cross-examiner as a rule of fair play would be entitled to further opportunity to cross-examine based on that document resulting in delayed trial defeating the very object and purpose of the amendment to the C.P.C.
has been marked as "an exhibit", an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded. It is available to be raised even at later stage or even in appeal or revision. There is no question of inadmissible documents being read into evidence merely on account of such documents being given exhibit numbers in affidavit filed by in examination-in-chief or while recording oral evidence. For example in case of unregistered sale-deed or gift-deed or lease-deed requiring registration, no evidence of the terms thereof can be given. On the ground of public policy, evidence derived from unpublished official records of the State cannot be given except with the permission of the head of the department concerned as laid down under section 123 of the Evidence Act. Such a document, therefore, can be tentatively exhibited and the decision thereon can be postponed till the suit reaches the stage of judgment. However such objection has also to be decided before the judgment is delivered. The objection to the admissibility of such evidence can always be taken at any stage of the suit.
the objection then and there. In other words, whether document is admissible or inadmissible is matter which should always be ruled upon at the time when the document is being proved or put in or the question asked to the witness. Such practice and procedure is fair to both parties.
78. It may be observed that sometimes in the case of second category, evidence can be received subject to objection in anticipation of other evidence, which, if produced, will remove the objection. In such cases, a final decision on the objection can be postponed to a later stage but, at any rate, it must be decided before the court proceeds to judgment. Omission in this respect is likely to prejudice the party producing the evidence by letting the matter remain in a dubious state and then depriving the party tendering the evidence of an opportunity of making up the defects which in many cases he would be ready to do if he is told that the objection is allowed as observed hereinbefore.
and the trial Court should proceed with the trial to judgment without interruption. In the judgment the order should incorporate fuller reasons, if need be, for holding particular evidence to be inadmissible.
seen that the deficiency was supplied. Their Lordships think that there is no substance in the present contention."
Similar is the view expressed by three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of inP.C.Purushothama Reddiar v. S.Perumal, (1972) 1 SCC 9.
respondent now to object to their admissibility- see Bhagat Ram v. Khetu Ram, AIR 1929 PC 110."
objection as to the mode of proof must be taken and determined as it arises before the document is marked and exhibited.
82. While taking above view, we are also conscious of the another three Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra) followed by another judgment in the case of State v. Navjot Sandhu (supra); wherein the view taken is that whenever any objection is taken regarding admissibility of the material or any item of oral evidence such objection should be decided at the last stage of the final judgment. The said judgments were followed by the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Boman P. Irani (supra).
83. The procedure suggested by three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra) for being followed is little different than the view expressed by the another three Judge Bench judgment of the same Court in the case of P.C.Purushothama Reddiar v. S.Perumal (supra) followed by two Division Benches of the Supreme Court in the cases ofR.V.E. Venkatachalam Gounder and Smt.Dayamathi Bai v. K.M.Shaffi (cited supra).
403. Thus, mandate of Order XIII Rules 3 and 4 read with Order XVIII Rule 4(1) and consensus of judicial opinion compel us to fall in line with the view expressed in R.V.E. Venkatachalam Gounder and Smt.Dayamathi Bai v. K.M.Shaffi (both cited supra).
though the court before whom the matter arises afterwards might be of a different view."
v. K.M.Shaffi (all cited supra) has been consistently followed in our country in civil matters, as observed in Mishri Lal (supra), it will be worthwhile to let the matter rest since a large number of parties have modulated and continue to modulate their legal relationships based on the settled law.
relating to the admissibility of the document requiring resolution of complex issues, having effect of arresting progress of the matter, or if the admissibility of the evidence is dependent on receipt of further evidence, then, in such cases the trial Court can, in the interest of justice, defer the issue of deciding admissibility of the document. In Ram Ratan v. Bajarang Lal (supra), the Supreme Court has also observed that in a given circumstance a document can be exhibited with the endorsement made by the learned trial Judge "objected, allowed subject to objection", clearly indicating that the objection has not been judicially determined and the document was tentatively marked. This procedure is to be followed only in exceptional circumstances. Ordinarily, the objection to the admissibility of the document should be decided as and when raised without reserving the question as to admissibility of the document until final judgment in the case. We may make it clear that omission to object to a document, which in itself is inadmissible in evidence, would not constitute such document in evidence. It is also duty of the Court to exclude all irrelevant evidence even if no objection is taken to its admissibility by the parties. The question of relevancy of the document being a question of law can be raised and decided at any stage of the proceeding.
88. The cases; wherein Court Commissioner is appointed to record cross-examination, the Court may decide the question of admissibility of document or proof of such document before the matter is sent for recording of evidence to the Commissioner in the form of cross-examination or re-examination or, in a given case, the Court may decide that question at a subsequent stage. The Court, obviously, has a discretion of recording cross-examination and re-examination itself. During the cross-examination, if the document is produced and the question leading to its admissibility is raised, then, the Commissioner cannot rule the point as to admissibility of the evidence. In such case, the Court Commissioner is expected to record objection and can give tentative exhibit to the document subject to the decision of the Court. The Court would then be obliged to decide the question before the judgment is delivered so that the party producing evidence could not be deprived of its right to tender evidence or an opportunity of producing fresh evidence or opportunity of making up defects which in many cases could be remedied, if he is told that the objection is allowed.
strait jacket formula can be evolved. The C.P.C. has been amended from time to time in order to meet the changing situations. The courts trying the suit or proceedings involving peculiar facts do have a discretion to work out its own procedure and determine the stage of deciding the admissibility of the documents for the reasons to be recorded, if it advances the cause of justice without causing prejudice to the rights of either of the parties. The discretion should not be used fancifully. It is quite possible that sometimes when party fails to substantiate the allegations, he may resort to dilatory tactics to harass the opponent by filing irrelevant and frivolous documents to prolong the continuance of the case. This should be checked by exercising power available with the Court. As already said, procedure is always evolved to serve the ends of justice. miscarriage of justice.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v.