JUDGMENT
M. Papanna, J.
1. Legality or propriety of the impugned order dated 28.6.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in T. S. No. 173/1996 rejecting the petition of Defendant No. 2 challenging the admissibility of the documents marked as Exhibits 9 and 10 is called in question in this Civil Revision.
2. National Trading Corporation (for short ‘firm’) is the plaintiff, United Commercial Bank (for short ‘Bank’) is the Defendant No. 1 and New India Assurance Company Limited (for short ‘Company’) is the Defendant No. 2 in the suit. Defendant No. 2 is the petitioner, Defendant No. 1 is the Opposite Party No. 1 and Plaintiff is the Opposite Party No. 2 herein.
3. The Plaintiff firm brought the suit against the Defendants for a decree of Rs. 5,00,000/- recoverable from Defendant No. 2 being bound by the Insurance Policy coverage dated 15.3.1991. Plaintiff was a customer of the Bank (D. 1), and the cash credit limit of the former having been raised from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 17,00.000/-from time to time the latter was getting the insurance of the former done by debiting the premium amount from his account. The policy coverage of goods of the Plaintiff firm hypothecated to the bank for Rs. 1.00000/- expired on 20.12.1990. On 7.3.1991 the Plaintiff wrote the Bank to purchase Insurance Policy of Rs. 22,00,000/-and accordingly, on 15.3.1991 the Defendants filled in a proposal form to purchase insurance policy. On 22.3.1991 the Bank prepared a cheque for Rs. 11,4957- towards the premium in favour of the company. Therefore, the cheque was credited to the account of the company. On the next day the bank transferred the said amount the account of the company with due intimation to that effect. But it so happened in the mean time that on 24.3.1991 the properties of the plaintiff firm were looted and set fire causing thereby damage to the said properties. This fact was intimated to the Bank (D. 1) who refused to get the premium credited to its account. Though an amount of Rs. 11,495/- was credited to the account of the company yet it was reversed by the Bank for which the plaintiff firm brought a Consumer Dispute Case No. 78792 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bhadrak which decided the dispute in favour of the firm holding that the reversal of the entry on 1.5.1991 is illegal. The Company challenged the above order by filing C.D. Appeal No. 198 of 1992 before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. The Bank also filed C. D. Appeal No. 203/1992 before the above commission who in turn set-aside the order of the District Forum and allowed both the appeals. So the firm besides carrying the Revision No. 112/94 to the National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi, filed an Original Petition No. 276/1992 against the order passed by the State Commission. But the National Commission dismissed the revision as well as the Original Petition filed by the firm with an observation that it is open to the firm to file a suit in the Civil Court and accordingly, the suit in question has been brought by the plaintiff for the relief sought for.
4. In course of hearing of the Revision Petition, appearing for the petitioner, the learned Counsel Shri S. S. Rao has contended that when the Plaintiff filed a petition before the trial Judge to mark certain documents as Exhibits, the learned Counsel for the Defendants endorsed his objection to mark the said documents as Exhibits but insptte of that the documents were marked as Exhibits 9 and 10 which being the certified copies of xerox copies of documents filed before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi, are not admissible in evidence in support of which he has relied on AIR 1976 Orissa 236 Subarna Barik v. State of Orissa and others and also AIR 1994 SC 591, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. K. C. V. Reddy and others.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2, on the other hand, has contended that during cross-examination of P.W. 1 by Defendant No. 1 the learned trial Judge has marked the documents as Exhibits 9 and 10 which being the certified copies of the documents filed by Defendant No. 2 himself before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi and particularly when Defendant No. 2 has never objected while the said documents were being marked as Exhibits no irregularity or illegality has been committed in admitting the said documents in evidence for just decision of the case.
6. The delineation of facts of the case in detail made in paragraph 3 of this order indicates how and why suit was brought by the Plaintiff before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak. During trial of the suit the plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1 who was subjected to cross-examination during which admittedly certified copies of 2 documents which Defendant No. 2, (company) himself filed before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision No. 112 of 1994 supported by an affidavit (vide enclosure-2/1) were marked as Exhibits 9 and 10 along with other documents on behalf of the Plaintiff without any objection from the -side of Defendants on 21.6.2001 as has been revealed from the certified copy of the order sheet dated 21.6.2001. Order dated 26.6.2001 passed by the learned trial Judge indicates that plaintiff’s petition dated 21.6.2001 with a prayer to accept certain documents alongwith the objection filed by the Defendant No. 2 on 25.6.2001 were heard by him and disposed of on 28.6.2001 by passing the impugned order holding that the Exhibits 9 and 10 having been marked for the plaintiff without any objection from the side of the Defendants the same were admitted in evidence and accordingly he rejected the objection raised by the Defendant No. 2.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual aspects of the case, law as laid down in AIR 1976 Orissa 236 (supra) as relied on by the learned Counsel Shri S. S. Rao for the petitioner has to be seen. The ratio of the decision in the reported case is that as per Section 65 of Evidence Act, 1872 photostat copy of document is not admissible unless proved to be genuine but if the signatory is accepting his signature the photostat copy can be admitted without any further proof. In AIR 1994 SC 591 (supra) on which Shri Rao placed reliance the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken the view that admission of secondary evidence is improper when genuineness of documents is the fundamental question. However Their Lordships ruled that photostat copies can be accepted in evidence after examining original documents.
8. In the case at hand the documents marked as Exhibits 9 and 10 on behalf of the Plaintiff are admittedly photo copies of the proposals for insurance but they are the certified copies or the insurance proposals which the Defendant No. 2 filed before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi and that being so and particularly when they were marked as Exhibits during cross-examination of P.W. 1 by Defendant No. 1 genuineness of the said documents cannot be questioned by Defendant No. 2 having no Jocus-standi. In my opinion in the present case the certified copies of the documents (Exhibits 9 and 10) having been marked Exhibits without objection from the side of the Defendants alongwith other documents on 21.6.2001 before filing of objection by the Defendant No. 2 the learned trial Judge without entertaining any doubt regarding their genuineness admitted them into evidence without any further proof. In the reported case of Government of Andhra pradesh (supra) Hon’ble the Apex Court observed that the admission of additional documents by the High Court in writ jurisdiction is an exercise of discretion with which the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not normally interfere. But the genuineness of documents is an aspect which goes to root of the matter. If records have been tampered and fictitious documents were produced before the High Court then it certainly vitiates the findings. In the present case there is no doubt about the genuineness of the documents in question which being the documents of Defendant No. 2, he has no locus-standi to raise any objection regarding their admissibility in evidence particularly after they have been marked as Exhibits. In this regard reliance can be placed on AIR 1978 Orissa 125, Sailendra Kishore Painaik v. Harekrushna Satpathy and others wherein it has been ruled that when the documents were marked as Exhibits without objection of a particular party, that party cannot raise the objection that the said document has not been admitted in evidence, but that party
9. In AIR 1990 Rajasthan 90, State of Rajasthan V. Jeo Raj and another a view has been taken that when no objection is taken at the time of tendering and marking the certified copies of the documents, objection to their admissibility cannot be taken for the first time in appeal. In AIR 1929 PC 110 it has been held that it is not open to a party to object admissibility of the documents which are marked as Exhibits without any objection from such party. The proposition of law is once a document is properly admitted, the contents of that documents are also admitted in evidence though those contents may not be conclusive evidence.
10. While parting with this order I am of considered opinion that the present petitioner as Defendant No. 2 in the suit did not object to the admissibility of the documents (Exhibits 9 and 10) on the score of the same being copies of the documents filed before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi when P.W. 1 was being examined to prove the same during his cross-examination by Defendant No. 1. In such a view of the matter when objection to admissibility of the said documents in evidence having been not made before its reception by the learned trial Judge but made afterwards by filing an objection on 25.6.2001 as has been disclosed from certified copy of the order sheet dated 26.6.2001, the petition merits no consideration particularly when the certified copies of the documents in question having been admitted in evidence in the Court of the [earned trial Judge without any objection on 21.6.2001.
11. Reliance can also be placed on 90 (2000) CLT305, Union of India and others v. Kathi Bewa and others wherein the Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. K. Mishra, Judge of this Court as he then was while explaining the scope and legality of revision against an order of trial court admitting certain documents in evidence held that the proviso to Section 115 CPC, which was added by Act, 104 of 1976 makes it clear that the Revisional Court shall not vary or reverse any order unless it comes to the conclusion that the order if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injuries to the party against whom it was made. His Lordships has also observed therein that by merely admitting certain documents, it cannot be said that any right of the parties has been determined, or there has been failure of justice or any irreparable injuries would be caused. Inspite of the fact that the documents have been marked as exhibits, it would be open to the defendants to raise any contention relating to admissibility of such document on any permissible ground before the trial court and if the ultimate decision in the suit goes against the defendant, they can challenge such conclusion in appeal by taking recourse to Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
12. In the ultimate result, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the law on the subject discussed above, I hold that the trial Judge has not committfid any illegality nor acted with material irregularities in the exercise of his jurisdiction in marking the documents in question as Exts. 9 and 10 thereby causing a failure of justice as by marking such exhibits rights of the parties cannot be said to have been determined and that being so, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, which is hereby allowed to stand in this revision which in turn being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No cost.