The Supreme Court ruled that merely marking a document as an exhibit during trial does not prove its contents. Exhibit marking only identifies a document for reference; actual proof requires formal admission through witness testimony or other evidence. The Court further held that objections to admissibility of a prima facie relevant document must be raised at the time of its tender, not after its exhibition. Belated objections to admissibility are impermissible once the document has been marked.

This ruling clarifies a critical distinction in the law of evidence that frequently causes confusion in trial courts: the difference between admissibility of a document and proof of its contents.

When a document is tendered in court and marked as an exhibit (e.g., Exhibit A or P-1), the marking is purely a procedural act of identification. It means the court has taken the document on record. It does NOT mean the court has accepted the truth of what the document says. The contents still need to be proved through legitimate means — usually by examining the maker of the document, or through secondary evidence where primary evidence is unavailable, as governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Supreme Court reinforced two interlinked principles:
1. Proof of a document versus admissibility of a document are distinct concepts. A document may be admissible (not hit by any exclusionary rule) yet its contents may remain unproved.
2. Objections to admissibility must be raised at the time of tender. If a party allows a document to be exhibited without objection, they cannot subsequently challenge its admissibility on appeal.

For CLAT PG aspirants, this intersects with Sections 61–73 of the Indian Evidence Act (proof of documents), Section 65 (secondary evidence), and the foundational rule that exhibition ≠ proof. The examiner is likely to test this as a passage-based question contrasting admissibility with probative value.