Whether documents once exhibited can be de-exhibited?

I have also perused the material on record. It is
settled position in law that once the documents are marked
as Exhibits, they cannot be de­exhibited.  At the same time,
while deciding the suit finally, the learned trial Judge will
decide the same uninfluenced by the observations made in
the order dated 27.3.2012 in relation to Exhibits­21 to 23
and 25 to 27.  Subject to this clarification, no case is made
out   for   invocation   of   powers   under   Article   227   of   the

Constitution   of   India.   Petition   fails   and   the   same   is
dismissed. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition NO. 8569 OF 2016
Sultan Suleman Qureshi  V Mrs. Anisa Rafiq Charolia 
And Ors  .

  CORAM :   R. G. KETKAR, J.
  DATE     :  18th August, 2016



1. Heard Mr. Manoj Harit, learned Counsel   for the
petitioner, at length. 
2. By   this   Petition   under   Article   227   of   the
Constitution of India, the petitioner hereinafter referred to
as the 'defendant', has challenged the judgment and order
dated 22.4.2016 passed by the learned Judge, presiding
over Court Room No.10 of the Court of Small Causes at
Bombay below Exhibit­36 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.103/163 of
2004.    By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the
application   Exhibit­36   made   by   the   defendant   for   deexhibiting
the documents at Exhibits­24 to 28 and reject
same from the evidence. 
3. Mr. Harit has  invited my attention to the order

dated 27.3.2012 passed by the learned trial Judge regarding
admissibility of the documents filed by the plaintiff.   In
particular he submitted that while marking the documents
as Exhibits­21 to 23, the learned trial Judge has observed
that   the   contents   in   the   letters   dated   16.7.1998   and
26.4.1998 are proved in evidence of PW­1 Mr. Rashid  and
accordingly marked those documents at Sr. Nos.1 to 3 as
Exhibits­21 to 23.
4. Mr. Harit further submitted that the learned trial
Judge   has   also   marked   the   letters   dated   5.12.1998,
7.12.1998 and 28.10.1999 as Exhibits­25 to 27 by observing
that same are proved in evidence of PW­1 Mr. Rashid. He
submitted that the learned trial Judge was not justified in
observing that these documents are proved in evidence of
PW­1 Rashid.  Said stage will come while deciding the suit
on merits.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by Mr.
Harit. I have also perused the material on record. It is
settled position in law that once the documents are marked
as Exhibits, they cannot be de­exhibited.  At the same time,
while deciding the suit finally, the learned trial Judge will
decide the same uninfluenced by the observations made in
the order dated 27.3.2012 in relation to Exhibits­21 to 23
and 25 to 27.  Subject to this clarification, no case is made
out   for   invocation   of   powers   under   Article   227   of   the

Constitution   of   India.   Petition   fails   and   the   same   is
dismissed. 
6. It is made clear that where a decree is challenged
by   the   petitioner,   any   error,   defect   or   irregularity   in
impugned order, affecting the decision of the case, may be
set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of
the proposed proceedings as contended by section 105(1) of
C.P.C.           
( R. G. KETKAR, J.)

Print Page