GOURI SRIMANI Vs. ANIL KR. PAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisional application is directed against Order No 183 dated 17th March, 1999 passed by the 4th Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Alipore in Title Suit No. 139 of 1953. The impugned order arises out of the defendant's petition dated 1.3.99 for expunging a document marked as Ext. 5. It is note-worthy to make a mention that at the time when the matter was remitted to the trial Court, there was an observation made by the superior Court for disposal of the suit afresh on the evidence already on record and also after consideration of the tax bills filed in the appellate Court and the trial Court was directed by the said order to mark exhibit all these documents on behalf of the defendant. It appears there was a reference that while making remand, the High Court has observed that Ext. 5 is not admissible in evidence and in that view of the matter the Court expunged Ext. 5. The crucial point which requires determination is that once a document is allowed to be marked and exhibit where the Court is competent to expunge the same, there is no in built mechanism provided under the Evidence Act to expunge such exhibited documents. It any objection is taken, that is required to betaken at the time of reception of the document and it is compulsorily required to be marked as 'Y' for identification. Once a document is allowed to be led into and marked as an exhibit, the question is open for this Court whether the same is capable of being expunged by the Court concerned from the available records. A reference may be made in this context to the case of Javer Chand & Ors. Vs. Pukhraj Surava, reported in AIR 1961 SC page 1655 where the Supreme Court has observed that the Court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination then the document has the effect of being admitted into evidence and it is not open to the Court to expunge the said document at a later stage. The same is only capable of being done under the provisions of Evidence Act and not by analogous reference to Civil Procedure Code. It is, however, made clear that even if a document is allowed to be marked as an exhibit that does not necessarily follow that the document is sacrosanct in character and if it is otherwise not relevant, the same cannot be treated to be deemed to have been proved. Whatever the effects which are likely to follow either from the Evidence and document itself that will follow and that will not empower the Court to expunge the document which will be marked as manifest exercise of gross irregularity of jurisdiction by the Court concerned. It is also to be kept in mind that the appeal Court has directed the matter to be dealt with on evidence already on record and the evidence whatever are there on record cannot be changed or altered at a subsequent stage by expunging a document which will change the entire complexion of the totality of the record including the documents which are marked as exhibit. It appears from the submission of Mr. Mondal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf on the opposite party, that be is under the spell of confusion which has relevance or admissibility of document and the scope of the jurisdiction of exercise of the Court concerned to expunge a document which is allowed to be marked as an exhibited one. Accordingly, this Court feels that the order impugned suffers from irregular exercise of jurisdiction and accordingly the order impugned is set aside. The same will remain as an exhibit subject to whatever inferences which are capable of being drawn from the character of the document whether they are pernicious or beneficiary in the light of the provisions guiding and/or regulating of the document and/or admissibility of the document.

(2.) Subject to above, the revisional application stands allowed. Revisional application allowed.