Whether a document is deemed to be admitted by defendant if his counsel has given no objection for exhibition of that document?

 It clearly appears that the assumption which the learned Judge made is unsustainable, that assumption being that the documents which were allowed to be exhibited were either admitted by the defendant No.1 and the said admission was binding on the defendant No.1. In my view, from the facts narrated above, no such inference can be formed, for an admission must be clear and categorical. On the other hand, here what one finds is that the learned counsel merely said that he has no objection to exhibit the documents while he was asking questions to the first witness produced by the plaintiff. If that be so, it is neither an admission as to documents nor can be treated as an admission of the contents thereof. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revn. Appln. No. 272 of 1972

Decided On: 25.08.1972

Sanjay Cotton Co. Vs.  Omprakash Shioprakash and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.A. Masodkar, J.

Citation:  AIR 1973 Bom. 40

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence in suit for recovery of money based on Bahi Khata?

The case of plaintiff is that the defendant in token of
acknowledgment made bahi entry of the plaintiff. The alleged entry
has been stamped and even signatures are obtained on revenue

stamp. Plaintiff has not produced the bahi itself. He has produced
only a folio i.e. one page of the bahi.
[11]. The fact shows that plaintiff maintains a bahi. The
production of one page i.e. folio from the original bahi has to be
proved by the plaintiff himself with regard to continuity of pages. It is
not the case of plaintiff that it was the only entry appearing in the
bahi which is subject matter of the present suit. In the absence of
such averment, bahi pre-supposes maintenance of account book of
monetary advances made by plaintiff in the capacity of professional
money lender.
 Since onus of issue No.1 was on the plaintiff and he has
failed to discharge the same, therefore, he is not entitled to any
decree for recovery of the amount. The defendant has specifically
pleaded in the written statement that he has not signed any bahi
entry, rather his signatures have been obtained when he was in the
state of intoxication. Since the plaint does not contain any name of

the person who scribed the bahi entry, therefore, evidence of Satbir
Singh has to be treated out of context being beyond pleadings.
[14]. The signature appearing on the alleged bahi entry in Hindi
and his signatures on affidavit and statement in the Court in English
further aggravates the plea of the plaintiff and creates suspicion
whether Satbir Singh is the same person who allegedly signed the
bahi entry and has also appeared in the witness box. Father's name
of Satbir Singh further adds to the mystery as to whether he is son of
Bharat Singh-plaintiff or somebody else? Since the plaintiff has not
removed the cloud in his evidence, rather much of the evidence of
plaintiff is beyond the pleadings.
In respect of questions of law it is relevant to highlight that
mere exhibition of document does not dispense with proof of
execution. The name of the scribe as shown in the document has not
been pleaded by plaintiff in the plaint. Moreover the scribe who
allegedly prepared the bahi entry has signed the same in Hindi
whereas while appearing as witness his signatures are appearing in
English on affidavit as well as on the statement. There is no mention
about the scribe that he used to sign in both languages i.e. in Hindi
as well as in English. The pleadings in bahi entry as well as in the
plaint are at variance inasmuch that in the bahi entry, recital has
been made that amount would be repaid in the month of Jeth,
whereas there is no such averment mentioned in the plaint.
[17]. In view of aforesaid, bahi entry Ex.P1 is surrounded by
mysterious circumstances, hence cannot be read in evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1454 of 2011
Date of Decision: 28.08.2015

Bharat Singh  Vs  Ram Chander 

CORAM:  MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Citation:AIR 2016 (NOC) 654 P&H

Print Page

Whether court can look in to document which is not exhibited?

It appears that along with his written submission, the plaintiff filed certain documents which were not exhibited at the trial to prove sub- letting. In our view those documents cannot be looked into since they were not put in evidence and the defendant had no opportunity of replying to those documents.

Supreme Court of India

Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007

Bench: B.P. Singh, H.S. Bedi

           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil)  1223-1224 of 2005

Citation:(2007) 4 SCC 306

Print Page

Whether exhibition of document is administrative act?

By an application dated 20th October 2003, the petitioner (original defendant No. 1) made a prayer for recalling the plaintiff for further cross examination on the ground that the 'agreement' dated 14th August, 1986 was exhibited after the cross examination of the plaintiff was concluded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the document was not exhibited at the time of cross-examination, the defendant No. 1 did not cross examine the plaintiff on that document. Since the document has been exhibited after the cross examination of the plaintiff was over, he should be given an opportunity of cross examining the plaintiff regarding the said document. Exhibiting of an document is an administrative act. It is true that a document which is produced in court is ordinarily exhibited only after its proof. But, exhibiting a document does not mean that the document is proved and non-exhibiting a document does not mean that the document is not proved. A document is required to be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. Merely for administrative convenience of locating or identifying a document, it is given an Exhibit number in courts. Exhibiting a document has nothing to do with the proof though, as a matter of convenience, only the proved documents are exhibited.

Bombay High Court

Bama Kathari Patil vs Rohidas Arjun Madhavi And Anr. on 9 February, 2004

Equivalent citations: 2004 (3) BomCR 509, 2004 (2) MhLj 752

Bench: D Karnik

Print Page

When court can exhibit xerox copy of power of attorney?

Curiously enough, although it was pleaded by defendant
no.1 that the power of attorney was given to defendant no.2 for
limited purpose of managing the property, the said power of
attorney was not produced in the Court.
DW-1 did not
produce the original power of attorney to prove his case that
the second defendant, his elder brother, was only authorized
to manage the property. It is the plaintiff, who produced the
xerox copy of the registered power of attorney, which was

shown to the DW-1 during cross-examination, who admitted
the signature in the power of attorney.
All these relevant
pieces of evidence have not been appreciated by the High
Court in its right perspective. Instead of drawing adverse
inference against the defendant, in not producing the original
power of attorney, which was in their power and possession,
the High court has committed grave error in holding that the
power of attorney has not been proved as required under
Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act. In our view, when the
xerox copy of power of attorney produced by the plaintiff in
evidence and the signature and the contents of the said power
of attorney were admitted by the defendant, there was no
question of proving the said document as required under the
Evidence Act. The judgment of reversal passed by the High
Court by coming to the aforesaid conclusion is wholly perverse
and contrary to law.
is
now
on
record
A certified copy of the power of attorney
and
it
falsifies
the
case
of
the
defendants/respondent undisputedly.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9947 OF
2014
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19555 of 2012)
Zarina Siddiqui

versus
A. Ramalingam alias R. Amarnathan
Citation;AIR 2015SC580

Print Page