UTHUPPU Vs. FR C K MATTOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions have been referred to the Division Bench by the Single Judge who heard the appeals and they are:

(2.) The promissory notes have admittedly been marked as Exts. B & C. We find that they have been so marked when the defendant was being cross examined on 5th July 1956. The learned Judge has initialed and has also dated the documents apart from marking them as Exts. B and C. The plaintiff, when he was examined as pw. 1, referred to these documents as Exts. B & G and identified them as the two promissory notes executed in his favour by the defendant. It appears to us that the documents have thus become part of the evidence in the case.

(3.) But it is contended by counsel for the appellant in A. S. No. 587 of 1938 (the defendant in the case) that there is no endorsement in the documents "admitted in evidence" as enjoined by clause (d) of sub-r.(1) of E. 4 of O.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also urged that this is a case of the Judge marking the documents by inadvertence or by mistake without applying his mind to the questions involved, for, the appellant had already specifically raised the question of the inadmissibility of the documents in his written statement and an issue had also been framed in the case on this contention.