' This revision petition has been brought against a judgment dated 25th February, 1980 of the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali, accepting an appeal and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 17th May, 1979 of the learned Civil Judge First Class, Mianwali, camp at Isa Khel, by which the suit for possession of a house was decreed.
2. A suit for possession in respect of House No, R/60 was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner against the respondent/defendant on the ground that the respondent had gained the possession by breaking open the lock of the said house.
3. The parties had during the trial relied upon certain documents. The plaintiff/petitioner relied upon Exh. P. 1 to Exh. P. 8 and the defendant/respondent on Exh. D. 1 to Exh. D.
7. After submitting the facts as to the case the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the documents offered on both the sides had not been endorsed by the trial Court as required under Order XIII. Rule 4, C. P. C. Which fact was also not noted by the learned District Judge while deciding the appeal. The rule quoted is reproduced as follows :-- "4.-(1) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-rule, there shall be endorsed on very document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit the following particulars, namely :-
(a) the number and title of the suit,
(b) the name of the person producing the document,
(c) the date on which it was produced, and
(d) a statement of its having been so admitted ; and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Judge.
(2) Where a document so admitted is an entry in a book, account or record, and a copy thereof has been substituted for the original under the next following rule, the particulars aforesaid shall be endorsed on the copy and the endorsement thereon shall be signed or initialled by the Judge."
' The learned counsel has maintained that the non-compliance of this rule as to the endorsement being mandatory in nature has a serious effect upon the document because the unendorsed document cannot be looked into for the purposes of evidence and in this behalf the learned counsel has relied upon Sadiq Hussain Khan v. Hashim Ali Khan and others (1) and Imamud-Din and another v. Sri Ram Perbhu Dial (2).
In the Privy Council's case their Lordships of the Privy Council insisted upon the importance and observance of the provisions as to the endorsement on a document by depricating the non- observance of the rule to that effect and refused to look into the non-endorsed documents. In Imam-ud-Din's case the attention of the trial Judge was drawn to the necessity for strictly complying with the provisions of Order XIII, rule 4, C. P. C. In dealing with the documentary evidence.
Since it had not been done, therefore, it difficulty was experienced by the learned Judges of the High Court so as to come to a conclusion that which particular document had been admitted in evidence by the trial Judge. The case was remanded on that ground.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has also verified this particular fact from the record and has submitted that the mark of exhibit as placed, appears to be in the hand of the Reader of the Court and no more. He has agreed that the provisions as they stand are meant to be observed strictly otherwise there is likelihood of various documents becoming part of the record without the proper channel.
5. Since the evidence occupies main position in a case, therefore, the manner of receiving it contrary to the requirement, cannot be overlooked JA Order XIII, rules 4 and 5, C. P. C. Are exhaustive for this particular purpose and give full way as to the endorsement on the documents for the purpose of admitting them in evidence. If the procedure prescribes a way for doing a thing, why it should not be done in that way. Any step during the trial outside the procedure is not permissible because otherwise there is no necessity of enacting procedure for doing anything.
6. An option has been given to both the learned counsel since the case is an old one, to admit each other's documents if they prefer so that the case may be proceeded with on merits but the learned counsel have not agreed on account of their difference as to some of the documents.
7. For the foregoing reasons, both the judgments of the Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court to proceed with the suit after complying with the provisions of Order X111, rule 4, C. P. C. The case shall be decided otherwise on the same record, within the shortest possible time. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.
(1) AIR 1916 P C 27 (2) AIR 1928 Lah. 142