Endorsement of ‘exhibit’ had to be signed or initialed by Judge

Endorsement of ‘exhibit’ had to be signed or initialed by Judge – No signature or initial of Judge appeared on said endorsement of ‘Exhibit’ nor there was statement of document having been admitted in evidence nor it contained name of person producing document – Therefore all those anomalies would make it abundantly clear that document was not exhibited in accordance with Rule 4 of Order 13 of C.P.C. – However it was trite that when law required a particular thing to be done in particular manner, it had to be done in that manner – Thus said document was not exhibited according to Order 13 Rule 4 of C.P.C. and same was not exhibit in eyes of law – Petition allowed.

Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.The present petitioner/original plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit properties described in Schedule A and B of the plaint.The Respondents/defendants pursuant to suit summons appeared and denied the case of the petitioner and further claimed that the plaintiff has executed Hakksod affidavit on 30.7.2007.Read the Complete Judgment below. Refer to lawyers in India for more details.