Mere Marking Of Document As Exhibit Is Not Proof Of Contents : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (August 7) held that objections to the admissibility of a document that is prima facie relevant to the adjudication of a suit cannot ordinarily be decided at the threshold stage merely because the document has been exhibited.

The Court said that a mere exhibition of a document, during the initial stage of a trial, does not amount to proof of its contents; as such, exhibited documents need to be proved in accordance with law.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard the case arising out of a Madras High Court's decision to dismiss the Appellant-defendant's plea against the refusal of the High Court to exercise powers under Order XIII Rule 3 of CPC to eschew certain documents exhibited by the Respondent-plaintiff in their proof affidavit in a probate proceeding.

Order XIII Rule 3 CPC empowers the Court to reject any document at any stage of the suit which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection. While photocopied documents were eschewed, the High Court allowed exhibition of other documents relating to family disputes, pending litigation and property transactions.

Upholding the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Karol stated that those documents cannot be rejected at a threshold which might go to the root of the matter and would become indispensable for the adjudication of the suit. The Court said that even otherwise the documents would still have to be proved in accordance with law and that permitting them to be marked as exhibits did not automatically establish their authenticity or truthfulness.

“It is also settled law that mere marking of a document as an exhibit, is not a proof of the contents thereof… Therefore, in the instant case, the contents of the documents which have been marked/exhibited will have to be proved in accordance with law. We find no reason to eschew them, at this stage.”, the Court observed.

“We find no reason to interfere with the reasoning of the Courts below. The Single Judge has rightly eschewed the documents wherein xerox copies were filed in place of originals, without any explanation thereto. That apart, the objections raised to the other documents marked and exhibited are not such which make the documents prima facie inadmissible in law or irrelevant to the properties involved in the present suit. Consequently, exercise of power under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by this Court is not warranted in this case.”, the Court held.

The appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: S. SANGEETHA & ORS. VERSUS TMT. P. PONNI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 776

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Mr. R. Thiagarajan, Adv. Ms. T. Archana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mrs. Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv. Mr. B Ragunath, Adv. Mrs. N.C. Kavitha, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Ms. Nimisha Thomas, Adv.