20.08.2026 Court No.655 DL/Item No.–78 [Milan] CO 4491 of 2025 SMT. PIKA ROY NEE GHOSH VS DEBASISH CHANDRA ROY Mr. Sambhunath De, Mr. Samrat Chakraborty ….for the Petitioner 1. The petitioner is represented by the learned advocate. 2. The instant civil revisional application has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the orders/depositions dated 01.09.2025 and 20.09.2025 passed in the suit pending before the learned Trial Court. 3. At the outset, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that, during the course of examination-in-chief of PW1, certain documents were tendered by the said witness and were taken on record and marked as Exhibits. It is contended that Exhibits 3 and 4 were marked subject to objection, whereas Exhibit 2 was marked without any objection. According to the petitioner, apart from the aforesaid documents, certain other documents tendered by PW1 were not the originals, but merely photocopies thereof. It is, therefore, argued that such photocopies could not have been received in evidence and marked as Exhibits in the proceeding without the 2 necessary foundation being laid for adducing secondary evidence in accordance with law. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has accordingly sought to challenge the manner in which the documents were tendered and marked during the examination-in-chief of PW1. It is further submitted that the affidavit-in-chief filed by PW1 itself is liable to be interfered with on account of the alleged improper marking of the documents accompanying or referred to therein. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and have carefully perused the materials placed before this Court. From the nature of the challenge raised in the present revisional application, it appears that the principal grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the manner in which certain documents have been tendered and marked in evidence during the examination-in-chief of PW1. 6. In my considered view, mere marking of a document as an Exhibit does not, by itself, amount to a final adjudication upon its evidentiary value, admissibility or proof of its contents. The question as to whether a particular document is proved in accordance with law, whether it is primary or secondary evidence, whether the requisite foundation for admitting secondary evidence has been established, and what evidentiary weight is ultimately to be attached to such document 3 are matters which ordinarily fall for consideration by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage of the proceeding. 7. It is also significant that Exhibits 3 and 4 have admittedly been marked subject to objection. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner in respect of those documents has not been extinguished merely because the documents have been marked as Exhibits. The learned Trial Court is required to consider the objection in accordance with law at the appropriate stage, including while appreciating the evidence and determining the ultimate admissibility and probative value of the documents. So far as Exhibit 2 is concerned, the petitioner admittedly did not raise any objection at the time when the same was marked. In any event, the mere fact that a document has been marked as an Exhibit cannot, in every circumstance, furnish an independent ground for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there is a patent jurisdictional error, manifest perversity, or such grave procedural irregularity which warrants interference by this Court. It is not intended to enable a party to challenge every interlocutory order or every procedural step taken by the learned Trial Court during the recording of evidence, particularly when the party 4 has an adequate opportunity to raise and substantiate its objections before the Trial Court itself. 9. In the present case, I do not find any such exceptional circumstance or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. The grievance of the petitioner essentially relates to the mode and manner of reception and marking of documents during the examination-in-chief of PW1. Such matters can effectively be dealt with by the learned Trial Court in accordance with the provisions of the applicable law and the objections raised by the parties. There is, therefore, no justification for interfering with the ongoing trial at this stage. 10. It further appears that, by filing the present revisional application, the petitioner has sought to assail, in substance, the affidavit-in-chief filed by PW1. However, the contents of an affidavit-in-chief constitute evidence tendered by the witness, and the correctness, admissibility and probative value of the statements and documents relied upon therein are matters which can appropriately be tested during the course of the trial, including through cross-examination and at the stage of final appreciation of evidence. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and upon consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that no ground has been made out warranting exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under 5 Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The present revisional application, therefore, lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the revisional application, being C.O. 4491 of 2025, stands dismissed, along with the connected application, if any. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order if applied for be given to the parties after payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)