PAWAN DASS Vs. AKHARA GHAMANDA DASS @ BERIWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The document which was brought at the time of trial was as regards its admissibility. It was objected by the revision petitioner but allowed to be accepted as evidence subject to its admissibility to be argued at the time of judgment.

(2.) There are two approaches of whether the Court shall pass an order regarding admissibility at the time when the objection is taken or without fettering the course of trial, the Court could reserve the issue of admissibility to be considered at the time of final stage when the judgment was delivered. The court has adopted the latter procedure and reserved the issue of admissibility of the document to be decided at the time of judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel has done substantial research on this topic and brings to me that there are decisions either way and a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hemendra Rasiklal Lohia Vs. Subodh Mody, 2009 1 CivCC 362 has taken a view that a finding of admissibility shall be taken at the time when an objection is made and cannot be relegated to the stage of passing the judgment. Civil Procedure Code underwent several changes in the year 1999 and 2002 which brought an important amendment in Section 115 to restrict the Court's power in revision under Section 115 only to the interim orders passed by lower courts, which if it had been decided otherwise, would have gone to conclude the case. If an interim order was passed which did not conclude the case but it was only reserved for a judgment at a later time, then it was not an order which could be subjected to revision under Section 115. This amendment was brought with a salutary object of not causing obstruction in the course of trial. Article 227 suddenly became relevant in a larger way after the amendment of Section 115 and what could not be brought under Section 115 came to be filed under Article 227. The Supreme Court itself has resented this practice in Rajeshwari Vs. Puran Indoria, 2005 7 SCC 60 and has observed that Article 227 ought not to be understood as granting a new passport to what Section 115 would prohibit. The Court's power for supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 shall only be to correct illegality or assumption of wrong jurisdiction. Every wrong order is not an order that would allow for intervention under Article 227.