SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The present grievance has been raised by the defendant in a money suit as to the trial court acting without jurisdiction in marking a document produced at the argument stage by the plaintiff/opposite party directly as an exhibit, without the same being tendered or proved. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in cross-examination, the plaintiff's witness no.1 (PW1) admitted that he was empowered by the memorandum of association and article of association of the plaintiff company to depose in the suit. Subsequently, even after the defendant's witness was over, and argument commenced, the plaintiff came up with a prayer for recall of PW 1 to produce as evidence a purported board resolution, authorising PW 1 to adduce evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. It is argued that such prayer ought not to have been permitted at such belated stage.
(2.) Learned counsel for the opposite party, while controverting the arguments of the petitioner, submits fairly that marking the document directly as exhibit might not have been proper. However, learned counsel submits that the document is necessary for proper adjudication of the suit and the impugned order is innocuous since the defendant will not suffer irreparable injury in the event the document comes on record. It is further submitted on behalf of the opposite party that the statement made by PW 1 in cross-examination is not mutually exclusive with the board resolution sought to be produced, since the statement that the PW1 was empowered by the memorandum and article of association of the plaintiff/company does not preclude the plaintiff/opposite party from producing the further evidence of PW 1 being authorised by a board resolution also.
(3.) Upon hearing both sides and perusing the impugned order, it is obvious that the court below, in any event, acted without jurisdiction in marking the document in question directly as an exhibit without being tendered or proved.;