DURGASHANKAR S TRIVEDI Vs. BABUBHAI BHULABHAI PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent though served. The notice of the petition was issued to the respondent giving clear intimation that the matter would be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. None has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent. Apparently, the respondent has nothing to say in the matter.

(2.) MAKING grievance about the growing tendency to postpone the decision on the objection to the admissibility of documents to the stage of final hearing of the suits and allowing the document to be exhibited without considering the objection to its admissibility and in violation of the provisions of law contained in Order XIII of Code of Civil Procedure as well as contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in that regard, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Court has totally ignored that in terms of the provisions of law it is necessary for the parties to tender the document by entering into witness box and its admissibility being required to be tested before it can form part of the evidence. The Court below having totally ignored this aspect, has acted not only in breach of procedure but contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court on the point in issue. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana) reported in A. I. R. 1961 Supreme Court 1655 and in the case of (Ram Rattan (dead) by legal representatives v. Bajrang Lal) reported in A. I. R. 1978 Supreme Court 1393, and of this Court in the matter of (Saifuddin Saheblal Vazir v. Habjabai Mishra Patel) reported in 2003 (3) Bom. C. R. 242 : 2003 (1) All. M. R. 131 and in A. I. R. 2003 Bombay 36.

(3.) FACTS in brief relevant for the decision are that taking recourse to the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 4 of C. P. C, the respondent-plaintiff sought to tender the evidence in the form of affidavit of his witness and alongwith such affidavit sought to produce documents on record. The trial Court while taking such affidavit on record, also allowed the respondent to tender the documents alongwith the affidavit of his witness and the same were exhibited without considering and deciding the objection which was raised by the petitioners to the admissibility of such document as well as in relation to the procedure to be followed for the purpose of producing the documents in evidence when the parties are allowed to lead the evidence in the form of affidavit under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of C. P. C. Hence the present petition.