I. S. ISRANI, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 1. 12. 1983 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur in civil suit No. 207/68 (190/80) disallowing the application of the plaintiff dt. 18. 11. 83 for marking exhibit on certified copy of a sale deed dated 24. 3. 1937 produced by the defendants non-petitioners and admitted by the plaintiff.
(2.) THE plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for return of possession of piece of land and issue of perpetual injunction against the defendants in the trial court. THE evidence of the plaintiff petitioner was recorded and thereafter the evidence of defendants was also closed on 18. 11. 83. THEreafter, 3 applications were filed by the plaintiff petitioner on the same day, but this revision petitioner concerns only one application dated 18. 11. 83, in which it was prayed that the non-petitioners had filed certified copy of a sale deed dated 24. 3. 37, which is admitted by the petitioner and therefore exhibit number may be put on the same. This application was opposed by the non-petitioners and the learned trial court vide its impugned order dated 1. 12. 83 held that the application filed under Order 12 Rule 14 C. P. C. cannot be granted as the evidence of the plaintiff had already been closed and therefore, the application was not governed by the provisions of Order 12 Rule 14 C. P. C It was stated that it was not for putting any exhibit number on the document. The contention of Mr. J. P. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mention of Order 12 Rule 14 C. P. C. on the application as well as reference to the same by the trial court is erroneous as there is no such Order 12 Rule i4 in the C. P. C. It is contended by the learned counsel that since the document, certified copy of the sale deed which has been filed by the non- petitioners defendants and is admitted by the plaintiff, it does not require any further proof for putting exhibit number on the same. The contention of Shri P. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the non-petitioners is that since the evidence of both the parties has already closed there was no stage now to mark exhibit number of this document. He has placed reliance on the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Ajit Prasad (1) in which the Apex Court has held no interference should be made with the order of the trial court even if the order is right or wrong or in accordance with law or not unless it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Evidently, the application is governed by Order 13 Rule 4 C. P. C. which deals with endorsement of documents admitted in evidence and by rule 46 of the Rajasthan General Rules (Civil) 1952. In rule 46, it has been laid down that documents which do not require proof e. g. public documents submitted by the parties against whom they are produced in evidence, shall be admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits in the manner prescribed in rule 50. The document involved in a certified copy of the sale deed which has been filed by the defendants and is admitted by the plaintiff petitioner. The principles laid down in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (supra) are not applicable its jurisdiction with material irregularity and if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice and will cause irreparable injury to the petitioner reliance has been placed on Mst. Hulasi Vs. Mohan Lal (2 ). It was held by this court that "the proper stage for affixing the endorsement on a document under O. XIII, R. 4 is when a document has been admitted in evidence and this stage arises not when a document is merely filed in court by a party, but when it is tendered in evidence and formally sought to be proved. But where documents are admitted between the parties, it is not at all necessary to formally tender them in evidence, and the endorsement under O. XIII, R. 4 may be made immediately on such admission. The same position holds good where the document is a certified copy of a public document, which does not require any formal proof. " In the matter under revision the document certified copy of a sale deed which is admitted by the defendants as well as the plaintiffs, therefore it is not at all necessary that the same may be tendered formally in evidence and the endorsement can be made on the same by the court. Merely because the endorsement on this document was not made earlier, does not mean that when the attention of the court is drawn, still the same shall not be done. It is only appropriate that when the attention of the court was drawn the endorsement on the document should have made by making exhibit number as the document is admitted by both the parties. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. It is directed that the learned trial court shall endorse the document certified copy of the sale deed dated 24. 3. 1937 filed by the non-petitioner by putting exhibit number on the same.
(3.) NO order as to costs. .;