2023 CLC 713 Power of court to receive document any evidence at subsequent stage---Scope and principle---De-exhibiting of document ---If a party relied upon a document , he should have filed the document s with the plaint, and if he relied upon on any other document s, whether or not in his possession or power, as evidence in support of his claim then such document s were required to be entered in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint as provided in R.14 of O.VII of the C.P.C---Otherwise party should have produced all the document ary evidence of every description in his possession or power at the first hearing of the suit on which he intended to rely as required under O.XIII, R.1 of the C.P.C---As far as non-filing of document s along with the plaint or at the first hearing of the suit, it had never been considered fatal in view of provision of the O.XIII, R.2 of the C.P.C which empowered the Court to receive document ary evidence at subsequent stage of trial---No document ary evidence in possession or powers of any party which could have been but had not been produced in accordance with the requirements of R.1 of O.XIII of the C.P.C could be received at any stage of the proceedings unless good cause was shown to the satisfaction of the Court for non- production thereof and the Court receiving any such evidence could record the reasons for doing so---Object of O.XIII R.2 of the C.P.C was not to penalize the parties for not producing the document s in time but to provide opportunity to produce evidence which party for some good cause could not produce well within time---Evidence could not be shut-out to exclude the document s generally except where they were apparently suspicious, forged or fabricated , so as to prevent the fraud---Two relevant stages relating to bringing the document s on record were; first stage was to produce or file a document at the time of filing of the plaint and the second when it was tendered in evidence---Discretion was, therefore, vested in the Trial Court to extend the time for producing document s even after the first hearing; there was also no requirement for filing a formal application so as to seek leave of the Court in order to produce a document ---Expression of de-exhibit was not defined nor mentioned in the C.P.C, although R.3 of O.XIII of the C.P.C empowered the Court that it could reject irrelevant or inadmissible document s but it was not the intention of legislation to remove the document s from the record after they had been received and marked as exhibit---Party filing the document was entitled to receive it back as provided under O.XIII, R.4, C.P.C.---Provision of O.XIII, R.4 of the C.P.C was mandatory and if not complied with, the document could not be considered in evidence. Judicial proceeding--Presumption of due course and correctness---List of document s relied upon---Predecessor of petitioners filed suit for declaration before Trial Court---Respondents contested the suit through written statement---Respondents moved an application for rejection/de-exhibit of document s produced by petitioners---Trial Court accepted the application and de-exhibited the document s---Predecessor of the petitioners filed civil revision before Appellate Court---Appellate Court dismissed the civil revision of predecessor of petitioners---Held, that counsel for the predecessor of the petitioners produced document ary evidence in presence of counsel for respondents, which was got exhibited---Presence of counsels for the parties was marked by the Trial Court---No affidavit of counsel for the respondents was available to the effect that on the fateful date ,he was not present at the time of producing the document ary evidence from the petitioner's side---Presumption of due course and correctness was attached to the proceedings of the Court which was official record---Such presumption was rebuttable, but vague and meager evidence could not rebut such presumption---Strong and un impeachable evidence would be needed to rebut such presumption ---Giving preference to mere bald assertions or affidavit over judicial proceedings recorded by a Presiding Officer, if adopted, would lead to a large number of complications---In case in hand, it was evident from perusal of list of relied document s that predecessor of the petitioners relied upon certified copies of record of rights from the year 1946-47 to 1985-86 certified copy of record of right for the year 1993-94 and some other important document s---Meaning thereby, the predecessor of the petitioners had relied upon the document s---Constitutional petition was allowed, impugned judgments/orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court were set aside and document s produced by predecessor of the petitioners were deemed to be the part of the record with the direction that respondents/defendants were at liberty to rebut these document s by producing evidence on their turn. Exhibition of document ---Public document s---Waiver of objection---Courts were vested with authority and jurisdiction to ascertain the genuineness and authenticity of any document in order to arrive at just and fair conclusion---Respondents/defendants in the present case failed to raise any objection before the Trial Court at the time of exhibition of document s---document s having been marked as exhibited became admissible in evidence---When a document had been exhibited in evidence without any objection and was allowed to be brought on record by the Court the same could be deemed as proved in all respect---Party not objecting for production of such document s in Court would be presumed to have waived such objection---Court was not prevented from adjudicating the nature of document whether it was valid or not, whether document was fake or not---Admittedly, document s produced by predecessor of the petitioners were certified copies of the revenue record which fell within the scope of the expression "Public document s" and mere non-mentioning of said document s i non the list of relied document s could not be ground for de-exhibiting said documents