Dear Ravi! I am reiterating the text in the commentary here:- Section 61 of Evidence Act: "Section 61. The contents of document may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence."

 The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as an exhibt by the Court can not be held to be a due proof of its contents or does not dispense with its proof. [Saint Tarajee Khimchand Vs. Yelamarti Satyam, AIR 1971 SC, 1865] [Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Virendra Kumar Jaiswal, 2003 (8) SCC 745] Section 61 of the Evidence Act provides that the contents of the documents must be proved by primary or secondary evidence except in the case as provided in the Act. Therefore any document produced by any of the parties to the lis necessarily requires to be proved in the manner as provided under the Evidence Act. 

Consent by a party to exhibit a document does not amount to admission of its contents [Sanjay Cotton Vs. Om Prakash, AIR 1973 Bom 40].

Any document produced by any party to lis is necessarily required to be proved in manner provided under the Evidence Act. Except where the documents produced and signatures on them are admitted by the opposite party and they marked thereafter as exhibits by the Court, execution of documents produced and marked as exhibits by Court has to be proved by admisible evidence that is by the 'evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue' [Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Virendra Kumar Jaiswal, 2003 (8) SCC 745] 

Thanx nagrajeshwar ji..