SHIVAGOND Vs. GIRIMALLAPPA GOWDA DEADY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition impugns the order dated 10.01.2011 passed by the Court below on I.A.No. 6 in O.S.No. 199/2000 by which the application filed by the respondent-plaintiffs has been allowed. By I.A.No. 6, the respondent-plaintiffs sought permission to produce several documents including the document at Sl. No. 6 which is a photocopy of an agreement dated 02.04.1964. Objection for marking this document was seriously raised by the petitioners. The learned Judge without recording the objection, allowed the respondent-plaintiffs to produce the said document as secondary evidence, and also marked it as Ex. P.34. It appears that the plaintiff in his affidavit of examination-in-chief made reference to this document along with several other documents.

(2.) Mr. Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat, 2001 3 SCC 1and submitted that the procedure contemplated by paragraph 14 of the judgment has not been followed by the learned Judge while marking the document.

(3.) Mr. M.G. Naganuri, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 4 to 8 fairly stated that the marking as Exhibit P. 34 made by learned Judge, insofar as this document (02.04.1964) is concerned, may be treated as tentative marking and the question of its admissibility and marking it as exhibit may be kept open to be considered at the stage of final judgment. In view of the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice: