RISAL SINGH Vs. JHANDU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by a defendant against the order of the Court of First Appeal remanding the case to the trial Court, presumably under Order XLI, rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the direction that the documents relied on may be properly admitted after making the endorsement required under Order XIII, rule 4(1) of the said Code and that the judgment and decree may thereafter be passed in accordance with law. It was felt by the lower appellate Court that a remand of the case was likely to work a great hardship on the parties but all the same there appeared no way out.

(2.) The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents was for the possession of 74 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land on the basis of title. The defendant-appellant had denied the title of the plaintiffs and had also set up the plea that they had been in adverse possession as owners for a number of years. The parties had relied on a large number of documents, most of which were certified copies of revenue records. No objection may appear to have been raised by any of the parties when these documents were tendered and admitted in evidence. These documents were duly given exhibit marks which bear the initials of the Presiding Officer. Order XIII rule 4(1) of the Code, however, requires that certain particulars have to be endorsed on every such document which has been admitted in evidence. These particulars include the number and title of the suit, the name of the person producing the document, the date on which it was produced and a certificate of the Court evidencing the fact that the document had been admitted in evidence. The prescribed endorsement of these particulars is not to be found on any of the documents but there is nothing to show that this omission has caused any miscarriage of justice or prejudice to either party.

(3.) Shri Liberhan, the learned counsel for the appellants relies on Section 99 of the Code in support of his arguments that the decree of the trial Court could not be reversed or varied and that the case could not have been remanded because of this defect or irregularity which has not affected the merits of the case. I, however, find that the trial Court's failure to comply with the provisions of Order XIII, rule 4(1) can lead to serious consequences and that the merits of the case may also be affected if the consequences of non-observance by the trial Court of these provisions were not to be strictly enforced by the appellate Courts.