MOHD RAHAMATHUMMA Vs. VEERA RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 14.08.2008 made in I.A.Nos.9393 and 9394 of 2008 in O.S.No,6017 of 2007 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, these civil revision petitions are focussed.

(2.) DESPITE listing the case repeatedly, no one appeared on either side.

(3.) THE factual circumstances are such that PW1 was examined in Chief and the matter was posted for cross. However, the plaintiff had chosen to continue with the chief examination of PW1 for the purpose of marking certain documents. But the lower court interpreted the I.A for reopening as though it is a surplusage in view of the plaintiff's side having been not closed. Such a view is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of this case. THE real purpose of the I.A filed for re-opening is only to reopen the chief examination and continue with the chief examination and the court was not expected to take such a draconian view of the matter relating to the marking of the documents during continuation of chief examination. THE observation made by the court is totally antithetical to the well settled proposition of law as found enunciated in the decision reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1158 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and another). An excerpt from it would run thus: "13. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.) 14. THE above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence-taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. THE witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses."