Krishna Vs. Sanjeev

Krishna vs Sanjeev

Disposition Writ petition rejected Court Karnataka Decided Jul 14, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/383408

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/383408
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: N. Kumar, J.
Decided On: Jul 14, 2003
Case Number: W.P. No. 29882/2003
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Writ petition rejected

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

(A) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (AMENDMENT ACT OF 1999 AND 2002) - ORDER 13 RULE 4, ORDER 18 RULE 4--In the affidavit, the plaintiff marked the suit document as per Ex.P.1. The learned Trial Judge took the said affidavit as oral evidence by way of examination-in-chief of the plaintiff. Further, in the order sheet it ...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Writ petition rejected
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 151 - Order 13, Rule 4 and 4(1) - Order 18, Rule 4; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment),...

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishna

Advocate S.B. Hebballi, Adv.

Respondent

Sanjeev

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 151 - Order 13, Rule 4 and 4(1) - Order 18, Rule 4; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment), 2002; Karnataka Stamp Act - Sections 34 and 35
Reported In: ILR2003KAR3716

Excerpt

.....the said documents. thus preventing the defendant an opportunity to raise objections regarding the admissibility of the said document, thus taking away a valuably right accrued to him under section 34 and 35 of the karnataka stamp act. when the fact is brought to the notice of the court, realizing the mistake, the court in its discretion thought it fit to recall the said order in order to do justice between the parties, which cannot be found fault with. ;(b) evidence - difference between marking and admitting a document--held--marking of a document is a ministerial act whereas, admitting a document in evidence is a judicial act, before a document is let in evidence, there should be a judicial determination of question whether it can be admitted in evidence or not. in other words, the court admitting a document must have applied its mind consciously to the question whether the document was admissible or not. ;(c) civil procedure code, 1908 (central act no. 5/1908) - order 13 rule 4(1)--prescribes that there shall be an endorsement on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit--can such endorsement be considered sufficient to hold that the document has been admitted. held--the endorsement shall be signed and initiated by the judge. the document lacking the last requirement cannot be said to be admitted in evidence. the mere fact that the endorsement on the document as required under order 13 rule 4 cpc has been made should not in every case be considered sufficient to hold that the document has been admitted. placing the judge's initials on a document by a third person by means of a rubber stamp cannot amount to initialing by the judge. ;(d) civil procedure code, 1908 (central act no. 5/1908) - meaning of production of document, admitting the said document in evidence, marking of the said document which is admitted in evidence and proof of such document. held--at the time of admitting the document in evidence it is open to the opposite party..........such endorsement be considered sufficient to hold that the document has been admitted. held--the endorsement shall be signed and initiated by the judge. the document lacking the last requirement cannot be said to be admitted in evidence. the mere fact that the endorsement on the document as required under order 13 rule 4 cpc has been made should not in every case be considered sufficient to hold that the document has been admitted.placing the judge's initials on a document by a third person by means of a rubber stamp cannot amount to initialing by the judge. (d) civil procedure code, 1908 (central act no. 5/1908) - meaning of production of document, admitting the said document in evidence, marking of the said document which is admitted in evidence and proof of such document. held--at the time of admitting the documentin evidence it is open to the opposite party to raise objection regarding the admissibility of the document and if objections are raised, the court is under an obligation to decide the said objection. it is after the said objection is decided by the court and if it decides to receive the document in evidence, the said document is marked for the purpose of identification. thereafter the proof of said document would arise. after the evidence is adduced or the final hearing, it is open to the parties to address arguments regarding the admissibility of the document, to the relevancy of the document and proof of said document and the court will decide all these questions in the course of its judgment. (para 13) (e) civil procedure code, 1908 (amendment act of 1999 and 2002) - proper procedure to be followed by courts in respect to examination-in-chief and production and marking of documents and in respect of affidavit evidence. held: a) when the case is posted for evidence, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit unless ordered otherwise. b) when the affidavit is sought to be filed on the date the case is posted for evidence, the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

13 RULE 4(1)--Prescribes that there shall be an endorsement on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit--Can such endorsement be considered sufficient to hold that the document has been admitted. Held--The endorsement shall be signed and initiated by the Judge. The document lacking the last requirement cannot be said to be admitted in evidence. The mere fact that the endorsement on the document as required under Order 13 Rule 4 CPC has been made should not in every case be considered sufficient to hold that the document has been admitted.Placing the Judge's initials on a document by a third person by means of a rubber stamp cannot amount to initialing by the judge.

(D) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (CENTRAL ACT NO. 5/1908) - Meaning of production of document, admitting the said document in evidence, marking of the said document which is admitted in evidence and proof of such document. Held--At the time of admitting the documentin evidence it is open to the opposite party to raise objection regarding the admissibility of the document and if objections are raised, the Court is under an obligation to decide the said objection. It is after the said objection is decided by the Court and if it decides to receive the document in evidence, the said document is marked for the purpose of identification. Thereafter the proof of said document would arise. After the evidence is adduced or the final hearing, it is open to the parties to address arguments regarding the admissibility of the document, to the relevancy of the document and proof of said document and the Court will decide all these questions in the course of its judgment. (Para 13)

(E) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (AMENDMENT ACT OF 1999 AND 2002) - Proper procedure to be followed by Courts in respect to examination-in-chief and production and marking of documents and in respect of affidavit evidence. Held: a) When the case is posted for evidence, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit unless ordered otherwise.

b) When the affidavit is sought to be filed on the date the case is posted for evidence, the Court should insist that the witness whose affidavit is sought to be filed enters the witness box, takes oath and thereafter he/she shall handover the affidavit containing his/her examination-in-chief to the Court. In other words, the Court should not receive the affidavit containing the examination-in-chief of a witness by his/her Counsel, thus preventing the possibility of the witness disowning such affidavit.

c) After the affidavit is received through the witness, the Court shall call upon the witness whether he/she has any documentary evidence to tender and if the witness tenders any documentary evidence, the same shall be received by the Court subject to objection raised by the opposite party,

d) If objections are raised, the Court should judicially determine the question whether it can be admitted in evidence or not, then and thereof if the objection relates to insufficiency of stamp duty. If the objection is on any other ground, the Court shall follow the procedure as laid down in the case of K. Anjaneya Setty v. K.H. Ranganath Setty reported in ILR 2002 Karnataka 3613.

e) If the Court decides to admit the document, than it shallfollow the procedure prescribed under Order 13 Rule 4(1) CPC and mark the document.

Writ petition is rejected

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2003 Same Parties Krishna vs Sanjeev Same Subject Civil Same Judge N. Kumar, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 151 - Order 1...

Civil