STATE OF HARYANA Vs. K L SHROFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset we express our displeasure at the manner in which memorandum of appeals are being filed and thereafter argued in this Court.

(2.) SUFFICE would it be to state that after trial is completed in a civil suit, evidence relating to issues emerges in the form of the testimonies of the witnesses examined and documents proved, which documents are assigned exhibit marks. When memorandum of appeal is drafted, an reference has to be made to a document, the same has to be in the context of the exhibit mark assigned and not annexures being referred to in the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has repeatedly sought to argue the appeal on the strength of Annexure-E, which we find is an audit note, and when questioned as to what is the exhibit number of the document, the learned counsel states that the same is an unexhibited document. Thus, we ignore the contents of Annexure-E because we are compelled by law to do so. Even otherwise, unilateral audit reports, based on stated inspections are meaningless unless the opposite party was associated with the report and had concurred with its contents.