Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 24 of 1952, decided on 20th January, 1953 against the order of Senior Sub‑Judge, Rahimyarkhan dated the 20th August, 1952.

O. XIII, R. 4‑Docu ment admitted and exhibited‑Mere absence of signature of Judge wili not make it inadmissible.

The documents were admitted in evidence and were pro perly exhibited, which left no doubt about their admission and the mere absence of the signature of the trial Judge did not render them inadmissible.

Any defect in the endorsement is a mere irregularity, which is curable at any stage of the proceedings.

A I R 1916 P C 27, A I R 1924 Lah. 548 and A I R 1928 Lah. 192 distinguished.

Saleem Aslam for Petitioner.

Mustafa Khan for Respondent.

.‑This is a revision petition on behalf of Shafi Muhammad Shah plaintiff against the order of Senior Sub‑Judge, Rahimyarkhan passed in first appeal, whereby he set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below and remanded the case for retrial. Shafi Muhammad Shah had instituted a declaratory suit against the respondents in the Court of Sub‑Judge, Sadiqabad in respect of 22 kanals of agri cultural land in Mauza Goth Aloo which was ultimately decreed in his favour on 17th March, 1951. On appeal the Senior Sub‑Judge, Rahimyarkhan set aside the decree of the lower Court and after framing an additional issue in the case, remanded it for fresh trial. On revision petition by Shafi Muhammad Shah, the High Court set aside the order of remand and directed the lower Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits After hearing the arguments of the parties in appeal, the Court again set aside the judgment of the trial Court and remanded the suit for fresh trial on the ground that the documents produced on either side and admitted in evidence had not been properly endorsed under the provisions of Order 13, rule 4, C. P. C. From this order of remand Shafi Muhammad Shah has again come up to this Court in revision.

I have heard the arguments of counsel on both sides and am of the opinion that the order of remand cannot stand. Pirzada Muhammad Saleem, counsel for the petitioner con tends that the mere omission of the presiding officer to sign the documents which have otherwise been properly exhibited and duly admitted in evidence is a mere irregularity and does not in any way vitiate the proceedings. In support of his con tention he relies on A I R 1933 Sind 379 and 1934 Pat. 222. In both these cases it was held that non‑compliance with the provisions of Order 13, rule 4, C. P. C. however reprehensible it might be, does not make the document inadmissible in evi dence and does not in any way prejudice either party to the suit. It was therefore held that the omission to make the necessary endorsement was merely a technical error and could not be said to be as incurable.

On the other hand Mr. Mustafa Khan counsel for the res pondents has referred me to the basic ruling on the point reported in A I R 1916 P C 27 which was later followed in A I R 1924 Lah. 548 and 1928 Lah. 192. In 1916 P C 27, their Lordships of the Privy Council were pleased to make the following observation :

"Their Lordships, which a view of insisting on the obser vance of the wholesome provisions of these statutes will, in order to prevent injuries be obliged in future on the hearing of Indian appeals to refuse to record or permit to be used any document not endorsed in the manner required,"

In A I R 1924 Lah. 548 it was held that where the provi sions of Order 13, rule 4 have been ignored by the Court, such document cannot be regarded as having been legally brought on the record.

Similarly in A I R 1928 Lab. 142 it was held that omission on the part of the trial Judge to comply in any way with these provisions of law makes it impossible to say what documents the Court admitted in evidence and brought under considera tion in arriving at its conclusion and although no such objec tion was raised to this effect in appeal, the proper course was to remand the case for proper trial.

All these rulings cited by the counsel for the respondents are however distinguishable from the present case to Privy Council and Lahore cases referred above there was a contro versy as to whether the documents had in fact been admitted in evidence in the Court of first instance, but in the case before me there is no doubt about the admission of documents in evidence, which have been duly discussed in arguments by both parties and have also been made use of by the trial Court in its judgment. Even in the basic authority on the point in 1916 P C 27, their Lordships had not gone to the extent of holding that non‑compliance with Order 13, rule 4, however, reprehensible it may be, makes the document inadmissible in evidence. Apart from the fact whether the documents had in fact been admitted in evidence the provision of the rule had also been completely ignored in earlier Lahore case of 1924 and on this account as well the Judges in that case were of the opinion that the documentary evidence could not be regarded as having been legally brought on the record.

In the present case, however, the documents have been admitted in evidence and have been properly exhibited, which leaves no doubt about their admission and the mere absence of the signature of the trial Judge does not render them inadmissible, I therefore hold that tire authorities relied upon by the respondents are not applicable to the facts of the case under revision and I hold that any defect in the endorsement is a mere irregularity, which is curable at any stage of the proceedings. I therefore accept this revision petition and setting aside the order of remand passed by the Senior Sub‑Judge, direct that the appeal should be disposed of on merits. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court. Both parties present.

A. R. Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.