- (1.) The present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the trial court has not given exhibit number to the document, presented by the petitioner, who is original defendant no.3 in Title Suit No. 7 of 1997, vide order dated 1st February, 2008, which is at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, passed by the learned Sub-Judge II, Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj.
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case: (i) It appears that the petitioner (original defendant no.3) had preferred an application for giving number to the document, namely, certified copy of the return, filed by late B.K.Saha in Land Ceiling Case No. 180 of 1973-74, whereby, certain lands were referred in the return under the Land Ceiling Act, which are involved as a suit property and, therefore, the document affects the very root of the case. (ii) It appears that the original plaintiffs have certain objections and, therefore, the trial court vide the impugned order dated 1st February, 2008 has dismissed the application and no exhibit number was given to the certified copy of the document. (iii) It appears that the decision, given by the trial court runs counter to the principle, enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal V. State of Gujarat & anr., as reported in (2001)3 SCC page-1, especially paragraph nos. 13 and 14 thereof. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision in paragraph nos. 13 and 14 as under: "13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence-collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fallout of the above practice is this: Suppose the trial Court in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or the revisional court, when the same question is recanvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial court. In such a situation the higher court may have to send the case back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realized through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. 14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)" (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision, whenever there is any objection by any of the parties to the suit for giving exhibit number of any document, the objection must be mentioned by the trial court and a tentative exhibit number ought to be given, so that at the time of final hearing, the objection can be considered and the evidenciary value of the document, in question, can be appreciated properly by the trial court. This procedure has not been followed by the trial court and hence, the order passed by the trial court deserved to be quashed and set aside. (iv) Learned counsel for the original plaintiffs submitted that the document, in question, is not a public document and, thus, it cannot be given exhibit number, in absence of the original document and such other similar objection, raised by the plaintiffs, will be recorded by the trial court and will be given tentative exhibit number to the original document, presented by defendant no.3.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement and looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, I hereby allow the application, preferred by defendant no.3 dated 17th August, 2007 by quashing and setting aside the order, passed by the learned Sub-Judge II, Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj, dated 1st February, 2008 in Title Suit No. 7 of 1997, at Annexure 5 to the memo of writ petition. The objection raised by the plaintiffs will be considered at the time of final hearing and the matter will be decided, in accordance with law and the evidence on record. The trial court will decide the Title Suit independently and without being influenced by the order, passed by this Court.;