Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: Order XIII Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9

(a)   Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Documentary evidence---Objection to admissibility---Petitioner/defendant filed application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., seeking to set aside ex-parte decree passed against him--Respondents/plaintiffs sought de-exhibition of certain documents which were produced by petitioner/defendant in his evidence during proceedings under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Trial Court allowed application of respondents/plaintiffs and deexhibited the documents, which order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court--Validity---Objections with respect to admissibility of documents can be of two kinds: (i) document is inadmissible in evidence being irrelevant or not capable for being considered in evidence ("inadmissibility in evidence"); and (ii) objections directed towards mode of proof due to irregularity or insufficiency ("mode of proof")---If no objection is raised as to inadmissibility in evidence but just mode of proof, after the document has been marked as an exhibit, the principle of waiver for failing to raise objection as to formal validity can be attracted---Proper time for raising such objection as to formal validity or mode of proof is prior to marking a document as an exhibit or at the time when it is sought to be marked as an exhibit--Such objections should be taken at the earliest and once document has been tendered and marked as an exhibit, belated objection as to mode of proof is discouraged by Courts---High Court set aside orders of Trial Court marking the documents as exhibits without oath statement of advocate and the order to deexhibit them and also set aside judgment of Lower Appellate Court---High Court noted that the petitioner/defendant could file suitable application to produce further evidence/documents or re-examination of any witness---High Court directed Trial Court to give chance to respondents/plaintiffs to cross-examine as to additional evidence, if produced---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Malik Riazullah v. Mst. Dilnasheen and others 2018 CLC 1569; Muhammad Arif and others v. Aziz-ur-Rehman and others 2023 CLC 713; Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others PLD 2021 SC 715; Gulzar Hussain v. Abdur Rehman and another 1985 SCMR 301; Gopal Das and another v. Sri Thakurji and others AIR (30) 1943 Privy Council 83; Muhammad Akram and another v. Mst. Farida Bibi and others 2007 SCMR 1719; Khurshid Ali and 6 others v. Shah Nazar PLD 1992 SC 822; Jodhpur Gums and Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank and others AIR 1999 Rajasthan 38 and N.M.S.