Court clarifies exhibiting a document /= proving it under Evidence Act. Defendant can challenge validity during arguments.

The Bombay High Court, in a case involving a petition to recall the plaintiff for further cross-examination on an exhibited document, clarified that the act of exhibiting a document does not imply its proof. The court emphasized that the document must be proved according to the Evidence Act and that exhibiting it is merely an administrative step. Consequently, the defendant was allowed to challenge the document's validity during arguments. As no prejudice would result from this clarification, the petition to recall the plaintiff for cross-examination was dismissed, with parties instructed to follow the court's order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petition for recalling plaintiff for cross-examination regarding an exhibited document after the conclusion of the plaintiff's cross-examination.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Justice D.G. Karnik of the Bombay High Court pertains to a petition filed by the defendant seeking to recall the plaintiff for further cross-examination regarding an 'agreement' dated 14th August, 1986, which was exhibited after the conclusion of the plaintiff's cross-examination. The defendant argued that since the document was not exhibited during the cross-examination, they did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff on it. However, the court clarified that exhibiting a document is an administrative act and does not imply that the document is proved. The court emphasized that a document needs to be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, and the act of exhibiting a document is merely for administrative convenience in courts. Therefore, the defendant still has the right to argue during the stage of arguments that the agreement, though exhibited, has not been proved by the plaintiff in accordance with the law. The court concluded that with this clarification, no injustice or prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, and hence, the petition for recalling the plaintiff for further cross-examination was rejected. The court directed all concerned parties to act on an authenticated copy of the order attested by the court Sheristedar.

---