Exhibit Marking Of Documents Already On Record Causes No Prejudice: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Amendment Of Pleadings
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a Rent Tribunal's order permitting amendment of an eviction petition to incorporate reference to a postal receipt and acknowledgement due (AD) card that had already been filed along with the original petition but were omitted from the pleadings due to a clerical error. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 272]Holding that marking documents already on record as exhibits does...
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a Rent Tribunal's order permitting amendment of an eviction petition to incorporate reference to a postal receipt and acknowledgement due (AD) card that had already been filed along with the original petition but were omitted from the pleadings due to a clerical error. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 272]
Holding that marking documents already on record as exhibits does not prejudice the opposite party or enlarge the case of the litigant, Justice Farjand Ali observed that hyper-technical objections should not be allowed to defeat adjudication on merits.
The bench was of the opinion that the amendment neither changed the character of the eviction proceedings nor introduced a fresh cause of action, hence, permitting such exhibit marking did not enable the respondent to improve or embellish his case by introducing fresh evidence.
For context, eviction proceedings were filed against the petitioner. During its pendency, the respondent filed two applications seeking permission to assign exhibit marks to certain documents that were filed along with the eviction petition. Second application was filed seeking amendment of a paragraph of the petition for incorporating reference to that document.
These applications were opposed by the petitioner on the ground that these were filed at an advanced stage of the proceedings, after an inordinate lapse of time, to alter the complexion of the petition and prejudice rights of the petitioner.
The applications were allowed by the civil judge based on the fact that the documents were already on record, and the omission of exhibit marking was merely procedural. It was highlighted that the proposed amendment neither introduced any new pleadings nor altered the eviction proceeding.
The civil judge had also granted liberty to the petitioner to file an amended reply, to safeguard the interest of both the parties.
After hearing the contentions, the Court agreed with the decision of the civil judge, and held that,
“permission granted for assigning exhibit marks to documents already forming part of the record does not enable the respondent to improve or embellish his case by introducing fresh evidence. The exercise merely regularises an inadvertent omission in respect of documents which had admittedly accompanied the original petition at the time of its institution…Procedural law cannot be permitted to become an instrument for thwarting substantial justice or for defeating an otherwise legitimate adjudication merely on account of technical or clerical lapses.”
Accordingly, it was opined that petitioner failed to establish that the order caused any real or substantial prejudice. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Lrs Of Mr. Bharat Lakhani & Ors. v Vikas Garg
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 272