# convenience of the parties before the commission is executed

- **Citation:** C.L.No.92/VII-d-121
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1930-01-17
- **Case number:** C.L.No.92/VII-d-121
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/convenience-of-the-parties-before-the-commission-is-executed-163907
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

471
commission either by the issue of summons in the ordinary manner or by means of a
letter sent by registered post acknowledgement due. In case the witness is a government
servant, information should be sent to him through the head of his department. In all
cases, the convenience of the witness should as much be taken into account as the
convenience of the parties before the commission is executed.
(vi)
Documentary evidence
G.L.No.1/67-2 dated 17th January, 1930 with relevant abstracts from
G.L.No.3652/44-21 dated 4th July, 1922 and
C.L.No.92/VII-d-121 dated 23rd August, 1952

Attention is invited to instructions reproduced below and contained in General
Letter no. 3652/44-21, dated the 4th July, 1921:
(1) Order XIII, rule 1 sub-rule (i) requires that all documents upon which the parties
or their pleaders intend to rely, and which are in their possession or power shall be
produced at the first hearing of the suit, and rule 2 lays down that no such
documents shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings except for
good cause shown and for reasons to be recorded by the court. For the purposes of
rule 1, a certified copy of a public document is a document ̳in the powers' of a
party. Document produced for the cross-examination of witnesses or handed over
to a witness merely to refresh his memory do not fall within this rule.
(2) A form for the list of documents mentioned in rule 1, sub-rule (ii) has been
prescribed by the High Court. No document should be received unless
accompanied by a list in this form and it is the duty of the court, after the
document has been received, to note in the appropriate column of the form what
has become of the document after its receipt by the court.
(3) A document the genuiness of which is admitted by the party against whom it is
sought to be used does not require to be proved, and if admitted to be relevant and
otherwise admissible should be endorsed in the manner prescribed by Order XIII,
rule 4 and marked with an exhibit mark as provided by Order XIII, rule 13,
presiding officers should never omit to put their signature below the exhibit mark.
An entry should at the same time be made in column 3 of the list, the exhibit mark
being noted in column 1.
(4) If the admissibility of a document is denied on the ground of irrelevance or for
any other cause (e.g. want of registration or of proper stamp, etc.) the court should
proceed at once to determine the question.

If the document is held to be admissible, it should be retained, subject to
proof being given of it in cases where its genuiness has been denied. When such
proof has been given the document should be admitted, endorsed and marked as
directed in the preceding paragraph and a note recorded in column 3 of the list. If
it is a certified copy, its admissibility should be determined in accordance with
section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If the document is held to be
irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, it should be rejected or impounded, as the
case may be.
472
(5) (Superseded)
(6) Documents impounded should be dealt with in accordance with Order XIII, rule
8.
(7) If the document is an entry in a letter book, or a shop book, or other account in
current use or an entry in a public record, produced from a public officer, a copy
of the entry certified in the manner required by law, should be substituted on the
record before the book, account, or record is returned, and the necessary
endorsement should be made thereon, as required by Order XIII, rule 5 of the
Code.
In all cases where a document is rejected as inadmissible, it should be endorsed in
the manner prescribed by Order XIII, rule 6, and returned under Order XIII, rule 7(2).

Care should be exercised in dealing with documents of historic or antiquarian
value as directed in General letter no. 2977/180-2(1), dated the 31st August, 1917.

The Judge should record the admissions or denials of documents with his own
hand in the English notes as directed under Order XVIII, rule 19(2).1The Court looks
upon the proper treatment of documentary evidence in the judge's notes as an important
part of the presiding officer's duty and full compliance with these instructions is
expected:
(1) After a party produces his documents with a list the list and the documents should
be entered at once in the general index and the English proceedings should
disclose how each of the documents entered in the list has been dealt with.
The specimen below will indicate how an entry should be made in the English note
regarding documents.
Documentary evidence called for-
The plaintiff tenders (say, 12) documents marked 1 to 12 in list no. (as in the general
index).
The defendant tenders (say, 10) documents marked 1 to 10 in list no. (as in the general
index).
Admissions and denials are endorsed on the documents.
Defendant (or pleader) admits the following documents filed by plaintiff:
(a) Nos. 1, 4, 5 and etc. in list no. (as in the general index). They are given exhibit
nos....
(b) Nos......... do not require proof, and are given exhibit nos.......
(c) Nos..............are denied and require proof.
(d) Nos..........admissibility denied.
It should be particularly noted that the continuity of numbers of letters of exhibit
marks required by Order XIII, rule 13, should not be broken, i.e., it should not be possible
in any case that a few exhibits are marked 1 to 5 and the others 8 to 10 while there are no
documents on the record with exhibit marks 6 or 7.

1 NOTE: It should be Order XIII rule, 3A
473
C.L.No. 4-VII-d-121 dated 16th January, 1980
The courts should insist upon the list of documents and their production in court
being made as far as possible in chronological or some other methodical order. Questions
as to relevancy and the admissibility of documents should be decided as and when they
arise and not left to be decided at the time of delivery of judgment.
C.L.No.22/VIII b-82 dated 28th March, 1987
Rule 259 of the General Rules (Civil) and rule 151 of the General Rules
(Criminal) require that all the copies shall be certified by the copying department. To add
authenticity to the photostat copies it is absolutely necessary that they should be cetified
by the competent authority as envisaged in section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The practice to accept uncertified copies in judicial proceedings is not permissible under
the law.

All the judicial officers are required to see that uncertified copies, whether
photostat or otherwise must not be accepted in any case.
(vii)
Official documents
G.L.No.70/180-44(3) dated 16th December, 1935
The law relating to the production of unpublished official records as evidence in
court is contained in section 123, 124 and 162 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of
1872).

The Court if it sees fit, may inspect the document unless it refers to matters of
State or take other evidence to enable it to determine its admissibility. If for such a
purpose it is necessary to cause any document to be translated, the court may, if it thinks
fit, direct the translator to keep the contents secret, unless the document is to be given in
evidence, and if the interpreter disobeys such direction, he shall be held to have
committed an offence under section 166 of the Indian Penal Code.

For the purposes of section 123 of the expression ―officer at the head of the
department‖ may be held to mean the head of the office in whose custody the documents
required by the court is, and vis-à-vis the court which demands its production, that officer
should be treated as the authority to withhold or give the necessary permission.

In respect of documents emanating (1) from a higher authority, or which have
formed the subject of correspondence with such higher authority or (2) from other
Governments, the head of the department should obtain the consent of the Government of
India through the usual official channel before agreeing to produce the documents in
court, or allowing evidence based on them unless the papers are intended for publication,
or are of a purely formal or routine nature, when a reference to a higher authority any be
dispensed with.

In the case of papers other than those specified above, the head of the department
should not allow production of the correspondence if it relates to matters which are
generally regarded as confidential or a disclosure of which would in his opinion be
detrimental to the public interest, or to matters which are in dispute in some other
connection, or to matters which are in dispute in some other connection, or have given
rise to a controversy between the Government and some other party.