This application has been filed by the Plaintiff in the above said suit, seeking permission to mark the documents, namely, (1) To and Fro E-Tickets (Chennai to Varnasi), dated 10.10.2009 and 19.10.2009, (2) Photographs taken in Varnasi and (3) Photographs of house property.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it had been stated that the Applicant had filed the above suit, seeking declaration of the settlement deed, dated 16.10.2009, registered as Document No.1667 of 2009, executed in favour of the Respondent/ Defendant as null and void and for other reliefs. It had been further stated that the Applicant had examined himself as PW.1 and had also marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P39 during the trial. After his cross examination, the evidence was closed and the matter is to be posted for further evidence. It had been further stated that in paragraph 39 of the Plaint, the Applicant had stated that the said settlement deed had been executed when he was on a pilgrimage tour to Varnasi. He had now produced two E-Tickets for to and fro train journey from Chennai and Varnasi, dated 10.10.2009 and 19.10.2009 to establish that he was actually in Varnasi and also produced the photographs taken at Varnasi and also the photographs of the suit property to show that the physical partition of the property had been made by the Respondent/ Defendant in his absence when he was in UAE, Sharjah between 2002 and 2003. The said documents sought to be marked have been produced along with this application.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed, stating that the documents, namely, the E-Tickets, are irrelevant, since the presence of the Applicant was not at all necessary for execution of the settlement deed. With respect to the the photographs, it had been stated that that the allegation is false since during the relevant period, the Respondent was in Bahrain. To substantiate the same, the passport of the Respondent/ Defendant had also been enclosed. It had been further stated that the statement regarding partition had been introduced for the first time and consequently, the said documents cannot be marked.
4. This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their submissions and also perused the materials placed on record.
5. It is trite to mention that during the course of trial, the parties at lis will always be producing various documents, which in their opinion, are relevant to the issues involved in the suit. However, such documents have to pass through legal scrutiny of admissibility and proof. Thereafter, the Court will also have to analyse the relevancy of the said documents. Of course, all these will be possible only when there is an underlying genuineness in the documents. The issues relating to admissibility, proof, relevancy and genuineness have to be tested on the cornerstone of evidence in chief and cross examination. At the time of exhibiting the documents to the witness, it would be unfair for the court to reject the documents, at the threshold itself.. The party contesting marking of any document always has an opportunity to raise his objections and the Presiding Officer has to note down those objections and there is a duty cast on the counsel at the time of main arguments to explain as to whether the document, which has been given a exhibit number, should be relied on by the court while coming to final conclusion on the issues at lis. This is the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2001-3-SCC-1 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat).
6. Applying the above said ratio, the above three documents sought to the marked in this application, are permitted to be taken on file on the side of the Applicant. The Respondent/ Defendant will be given full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses on all aspects relating to the said documents. The objections raised may be noted by the Presiding Officer recording the evidence and the legality of the said objections and the admissibility, relevancy, proof and genuineness of the documents will be decided by this court at the time of main judgment.
7. With the above observations, this application is allowed.