In the case Sudir Engineering Company vs Nitco Roadways Ltd., presided over by Justice R.C. Lahoti on March 23, 1995, the Delhi High Court addressed an important procedural aspect of judicial proceedings: the marking of documents as exhibits. The judgment examined whether the act of marking a document as an exhibit in court equates to proving the document.
The plaintiff presented a report from a Notary Public as evidence, and the court was requested to mark it as an exhibit. The defendant’s counsel objected, arguing that the document had not yet been proven and should not be marked as an exhibit. This raised a broader issue regarding the practice of marking documents as exhibits before they are formally proven in court.
Justice Lahoti clarified that merely marking a document as an exhibit does not imply its proof. The judgment highlighted three distinct stages a document passes through in court: (1) filing of the document, (2) admission of the document into evidence, and (3) proof or disproof of the document. The court emphasized that a document can be marked for identification purposes but this marking should not be confused with its formal proof.
The judgment concluded by stating that marking documents with exhibit numbers is essential for identifying them during proceedings, but this should not be misconstrued as proof of the document’s authenticity. The court directed that documents admitted into evidence should be marked with serial numbers prefixed by “Ex.P” for the plaintiff or “Ex.D” for the defendant, as applicable, but reaffirmed that this does not equate to judicial acknowledgment of the document’s validity.
This decision serves as a significant clarification on the procedural rules surrounding evidence in Indian courts, ensuring that the integrity of judicial processes is maintained by distinguishing between the administrative act of marking a document and the substantive process of proving it.
