Clarifying the Evidentiary Process: The Role of Document Marking in Judicial Proceedings

-


In the case Sudir Engineering Company vs Nitco Roadways Ltd., presided over by Justice R.C. Lahoti on March 23, 1995, the Delhi High Court addressed an important procedural aspect of judicial proceedings: the marking of documents as exhibits. The judgment examined whether the act of marking a document as an exhibit in court equates to proving the document.

The plaintiff presented a report from a Notary Public as evidence, and the court was requested to mark it as an exhibit. The defendant’s counsel objected, arguing that the document had not yet been proven and should not be marked as an exhibit. This raised a broader issue regarding the practice of marking documents as exhibits before they are formally proven in court.

Justice Lahoti clarified that merely marking a document as an exhibit does not imply its proof. The judgment highlighted three distinct stages a document passes through in court: (1) filing of the document, (2) admission of the document into evidence, and (3) proof or disproof of the document. The court emphasized that a document can be marked for identification purposes but this marking should not be confused with its formal proof.

The judgment concluded by stating that marking documents with exhibit numbers is essential for identifying them during proceedings, but this should not be misconstrued as proof of the document's authenticity. The court directed that documents admitted into evidence should be marked with serial numbers prefixed by "Ex.P" for the plaintiff or "Ex.D" for the defendant, as applicable, but reaffirmed that this does not equate to judicial acknowledgment of the document's validity.

This decision serves as a significant clarification on the procedural rules surrounding evidence in Indian courts, ensuring that the integrity of judicial processes is maintained by distinguishing between the administrative act of marking a document and the substantive process of proving it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Judgment Detailed Summary

-
Image
Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...
Read more

Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

-
Image
Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Citation: 2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar Legal Issues: Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable. Background: The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of...
Read more