Skip to content


Ranajit Kanungo Vs. Ibcon Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 3055 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Kant219; ILR1981KAR1636; 1981(2)KarLJ575
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 13, Rule 2(2)
AppellantRanajit Kanungo
Respondentibcon Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant AdvocateB.A. Ramakrishna, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS. Ramaswamy Iyengar, Adv. for ;King and Partridge, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....showed his possession over suit house - defendants were in no way related to same they failed to produce any document to prove ownership held, defendants are therefore restrained from interfering with possession of plaintiffs over suit house. prayer of plaintiffs to declare them to be dismissed as unregistered documents and mutation entry will not confer any ownership rights on plaintiffs. - xiii, shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court for the non-production thereof and the court receiving any such evidence shall have to record the reasons for doing so......the petitioner from confronting certain documents to the witness (dw-1) during the course of cross-examination for the purpose of testing the veracity of the witness. the learned judge is of the view that since the documents have not been produced in the suit at the stage of production of documents, the same cannot be allowed to be produced in the case. it is also further held that sub-rule (2) (a) of r. 2 of o. xiii of the civil p. c. (hereinafter referred to as 'the code'), is not available to the petitioner,3. obviously, the learned judge has not looked into sub-rule(2)(a)of r. 2 of o. xiii of the code. sub-rule (1) of r. 2 of order xiii provides that no documentary evidence which is not produced at the stage of production as required by r. 1 of o. xiii, shall be received at any.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. At the stage of admission, the respondents have put in appearance through a counsel hence, the matter is heard on merits.

2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 24-6-1981 passed by learned Small Cause Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in S.C. No. 9723 of 1980 (old No. 0. S. 266 of 1980) preventing the petitioner from confronting certain documents to the witness (DW-1) during the course of cross-examination for the purpose of testing the veracity of the witness. The learned Judge is of the view that since the documents have not been produced in the suit at the stage of production of documents, the same cannot be allowed to be produced in the case. It is also further held that sub-rule (2) (a) of R. 2 of O. XIII of the Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), is not available to the petitioner,

3. Obviously, the learned Judge has not looked into sub-rule(2)(a)of R. 2 of O. XIII of the Code. Sub-rule (1) of R. 2 of Order XIII provides that no documentary evidence which is not produced at the stage of production as required by R. 1 of O. XIII, shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court for the non-production thereof and the court receiving any such evidence shall have to record the reasons for doing so. But, as far as the production of the documents during the course of the cross-examination for the purpose of testing the veracity of a witness is concerned. it has not been doubted at any time even prior to the addition of sub-rule (2) of R. 2 of O. XIII of the Code, that such documents can be produced during the course of cross examination. Addition of sub-rule (2) of R. 2 of 0. XIII of the Code is only the recognition of that established legal position. Sub-rule (2) has been added by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 104 1976) on the recommendation of the Law Commission made in its 27th report. The said Rule is as follows:

'(2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents,-

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witness of the other party, or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.'

From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the cause for the non-production of the documentary evidence which is required to be shown as per sub-rule (1) of R : 2 of O. XIII of the Code, is not required to be shown in respect of the production of documents intended to be used in the cross-examination of the witness or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Such documents which are intended to be used during the course of the cross-examination for the purpose of testing the veracity of a witness need not be produced at the stage of production. Of course, such documents must also satisfy the rule of relevancy and admissibility.

4. Thus, it is clear that the learned Judge has under an erroneous view of law, prevented the petitioner from confronting the documents to a witness during the course of cross examination for the purpose of testing the veracity of a witness. Consequently, the order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. The order dated 24-6-1981 passed by the learned Small Cause Judge Bangalore. in S C. No. 9723/80 (old No. O. S. 266 of 1980) is set aside. The learned Small Cause Judge is directed to permit the petitioner to confront the witness (D.W. 1) with the documents in question for the purpose of testing the veracity of the witness.

5. Revision allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //