Sl. No.29. 28.09.2026 Suman Ct. 237 CRR 4088 of 2026 Sudhir Somani and Ors. Vs. The Union of India Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Rishav Singh Mr. Dipta Dipak Banerjee Mr. Soumalya Dutta ..for the petitioners Mr. Amajit De, Special P.P. ..for CBI Liberty is granted to the learned advocate for the petitioners to add CBI as a party respondent in this petition. This revisional application has been filed challenging the order dated September 5, 2026 and September 10, 2026 passed by the learned Judge (CBI), Court No.3, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that by the order dated September 5, 2026 photocopies of some documents were allowed to be exhibited in trial which is not permissible in the eye of law. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, however, submits before this Court that the petitioners did not advance their final arguments in view of the order dated September 10, 2026 whereby the learned Judge has fixed September 30, 2026 for delivery of judgement. Mr. Amajit De, learned advocate appearing for CBI submits that those documents were exhibited without being objected to by the petitioners. Argument of the case is closed. Therefore, at this 2 stage, the petitioners cannot challenge the exhibition of those documents. Law is well settled that when a document is allowed to be exhibited, the evidentiary value of such document is not accepted by a Court of law. In support of this, paragraph 37 of (2009) 9 SCC 221 (Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Others) is reproduced below: “37. It is true that ordinarily if a party to an action does not object to a document being taken on record and the same is marked as an exhibit, he is estopped and precluded from questioning the admissibility thereof at a later stage. It is, however, trite that a document becomes inadmissible in evidence unless the author thereof is examined; the contents thereof cannot be held to have been proved unless he is examined and subjected to cross-examination in a court of law. The document which is otherwise inadmissible cannot be taken in evidence only because no objection to the admissibility thereof was taken.” In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, CRR 4088 of 2026 is dismissed. It appears that the learned Judge in the Court below has fixed September 30, 2026 for delivery of judgment. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Judge in the Special Court shall defer the pronouncement of the judgment for a period of one week. On the day specified for delivery of judgment, he will allow the petitioners to advance the oral arguments. The petitioners will also be at liberty to file written notes of argument on the same date. 3 After hearing the petitioners, the learned Judge, Special CBI Court, shall deliver his judgment within a period of seven days thereafter. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.)