Bama Kathari Patil vs Rohidas Arjun Madhavi and Another

D.G. Karnik, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Apart from the fact that the impugned order is an interlocutory order, I am not inclined to entertain the petition because, in my opinion, the order does not cause any injustice to the petitioner.

By an application dated 20th October 2003, the petitioner (original defendant No. 1) made a prayer for recalling the plaintiff for further cross examination on the ground that the ''agreement'' dated 14th August, 1986 was exhibited after the cross examination of the plaintiff was concluded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the document was not exhibited at the time of cross-examination, the defendant No. 1 did not cross examine the plaintiff on that document. Since the document has been exhibited after the cross examination of the plaintiff was over, he should be given an opportunity of cross examining the plaintiff regarding the said document. Exhibiting of an document is an administrative act. It is true that a document which is produced in court is ordinarily exhibited only after its proof. But, exhibiting a document does not mean that the document is proved and non-exhibiting a document does not mean that the document is not proved. A document is required to be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. Merely for administrative convenience of locating or identifying a document, it is given an Exhibit number in courts. Exhibiting a document has nothing to do with the proof though, as a matter of convenience, only the proved documents are exhibited.

It is therefore open to the petitioner defendant to contend at the stage of arguments that the agreement though exhibited, has not been proved by the plaintiff in accordance with law. With this clarification, no injustice or prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Hence, with this clarification, petition is rejected.

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of the order attested by the court Sheristedar.