P. MUKUNDAN Vs. RADHIKA VASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner being the defendant No.3 in respondents civil suit in O.S.No.25874/2010 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking invalidation of the order dated 20.11.2015, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A. Learned XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has refused to direct the respondents-plaintiffs to mark the subject documents put in their evidence since they were produced by the petitioner herein on the order of the Court below made at the request of the plaintiff side. The respondents having entered appearance through their counsel oppose the writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the subject documents having been produced by the petitioners on the direction of the trial Court made at the instance of the respondent-plaintiffs who have pressed the same into evidence, Court is not justified in letting them go without marking the same from their series of exhibits; the counsel submits, the text of Sec.163 of the Evidence Act, 1872 being mandatory, there is error apparent on the face of the impugned order warranting indulgence of this Court. He banks upon the decisions of the Madras and Bombay High Courts in support of his assertion. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents makes submission in justification of the impugned order.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the petition papers. I have adverted to at the decisions cited at the Bar.