BALBIR SINGH WASU Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner brings to challenge in revision an order passed by the trial court in the probate petition 2 of 1913. The petition was filed by the contesting respondents seeking for an order to be passed that document Exs. P.1 to P.40 which had been exhibited ought not to have been exhibited as evidence and that they should be rejected. An objection taken by the petitioner to the main was that the admissibility of the document has earlier been decided by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh by his order dated 9.6.2006. He had held some documents to be admissible, save for documents which were held as inadmissible. This order was challenged before this court in CR No. 3987 of 2006 and the court rejected the challenge and dismissed the revision petition on 1.8.2008.

(2.) WHEN several witnesses were examined before the court below, a fresh objection was again taken up reiterating the original objection taken that exhibits P.1 to P.40 have not been properly proved and they should not be received in evidence. The Court, after setting forth the objection regarding the earlier adjudication made thereon referred to the fact as regards Ex. P.2 and P.3, they were 30 years old documents and per se admissible. Ex. P.4 the court observed was an exchange deed and Ex. P.3 was a mortgage deed to which M.S. Wasu was himself party and signatory to the document and hence they were admissible. Ex. P.28 which had been originally treated as inadmissible was a photograph and since the negatives had been subsequently filed, the court held that Ex. P.28 was also admissible. Exs. P.9 and P.10 which had not been previously held to be admissible were referred to by the Judge as letters by the Estate Officer which had been proved by PW.5, who was a Junior Assistant in the Estate office. Exs. P.11 and P.12 documents which had not been originally found to be admissible, photo copies of the documents by the Income Tax Commissioner were earlier held as inadmissible on 9.6.2006 and no further evidence has been given by the petitioner to make them admissible and hence the court observed that the same would remain inadmissible in evidence. Ex. P.15 was an order of the Industrial Claims Officer, Jalandhar, Ex. P.16 was the order of the Settlement Officer and Ex. P.17 was the letter of the office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner. They had been proved by PW.7 who was a Clerk at the Settlement Wing and Rehabilitation Division. Exs. P.18, P.23 to P.25 and P.31 had been earlier held to be inadmissible. Ex. P.23 was the photo copy of the general power of attorney executed by Harnam Singh Wasu who was the testator and P.24 was the another photo copy executed by him. Exs. P.25 and 35 were also photo copies and they remained inadmissible, since there was no justification provided for filing only copies.

(3.) I would notice that the case is for issue of a probate filed in the year 1993. The case has gone at this length only for the purpose of exhibiting documents and for receiving objections of the parties. It would be seem obvious as to who has been the cause for this kind of delay. I have not even slightest doubt in my mind that the petitioner contributes in a large measure to the complete travesty of justice and for derailing a quick trial. A number of times, it has been held that a document which is exhibited in court and assigned an exhibit number does not dispense with the proof of a document [Sait Tarajee Khemchand and others Versus Yelamarti Satyamalias Satteyya and others : 1972 (4) SCC 562, L.I.C. of India & Anr vs Ram Pal Singh Bisen : 2010 (4) SCC 491]. If amongst the documents which were exhibited, some of them, according to a person objecting to the admissibility, were not admissible for any reason, then it would always be possible for a person to contend that the documents which are exhibited are worthless piece papers and that no credence would be attached to it. We have come by difficult times and courts shoulder enormous strain by explosion of dockets. Several reasons could be attributed to them but a significant reason is the manner in which we conduct our trial and how we understand and misunderstand the trial proceedings. This case is an outstanding illustration of how a party can browbeat and tease the court proceedings to absurd length.