Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ratan Lal And Ors. vs Smt. Kamla Devi And Ors. on 16 April, 1991
Equivalent citations: AIR1992RAJ1, 1991(2)WLC382, 1991(2)WLN493
ORDER S.N. Bhargava, J.
1. This is plaintiff's revision petition against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissing application of the petitioners for putting certain questions by way of pigeon-hole.
2. The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents, for an agreement executed by- them on 6-12-1970. The plaintiffs closed their evidence and, the ''defendants' evidence was in progress. One of the defendant-respondents' witness, Ghan-shyam was being examined and cross-examination was in progress. He denied the signatures of Mohan Lal: on the agreement (Ex. 9). Thereafter, the petitioners submitted an application in writing that they may be allowed to cross-examine the witness by way of pigeon-hole i.e. by showing only the signatures of Mohan Lal on some other documents without telling the contents there-- of. But the trial Court did not allow such type of cross-examination. The trial Court, not only' dismissed the application filed by the petitioners but closed further cross-examination by the petitioners. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to B. Malik's cross-examination, Second Edn. 1979 which shows that a counsel is permitted to cross-examine the witness as to the contents of letter without showing it to him.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-petitioners has very vehemently submitted that no revision petition lies against the impugned order and this Court cannot interfere in revision against such an order. He has placed reliance on Bisheshwar Singh v. A.G. Bihar, AIR 1974 Pat 16, in which the High Court did not interfere in the order disallowing interrogation intended for disposal of interim injunction as it did not amount to case decided. Learned Counsel for the non-petitipners also drew my attention to Maheshwari Oil Mills v. Girija Nath Durga Saran, AIR 1980 All 265, wherein also a similar view has been taken and it has been held that the order refusing to grant leave to a party to interrogate is not a case decided within the meaning of Section 115, C.P.C. He has also referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Smt. Kali Baba Akhuli v. Shambhu Akhuli, AIR 1981 NOC 80.
5. I have gone through the order of the' trial Court as well as the authorities cited at the, bar. The two decisions of the High Courts -- Patna and Allahabad, High Court related only to disallowing of interrogation ,whereas full text of the judgment of the Calcutta High, Court is ,not available and it has appeared only in Short Notes, therefore, it does not throw any light as to under what circumstances the Calcutta High Court refused to interfere in revision, with an order of the trial Court disallowing certain questions to a witness'. It is true the scope of revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is very limited and restricted' but all the same, the courts are meant to do justice in accordance with law, not only technical justice but substantial justice;. Justice need, not only be done but it should appear, to, have been, done. Disallowing the question may not amount to case decided; but all the same, putting questions like the one as the petitioners' wanted to do, in the present case, i.e. cross-examine the witnessiby method of pigeon-hole, was to test the truthfulness and correctness of the statement of the witness who had asserted in the cross-examination that the signatures on the questioned agreement were not that of Mohan Lal. The method of showing the signatures of Mohanlal on admitted documents is not only effective but the only method of testing the veracity of the witness whether he is speaking truth or not and a party is fully entitled to put such type of questions when a witness conies and gives statement like a handwriting expert, denying the signatures. Non-allowing such questions to be put to the witness will amount to refusing to allow the cross-examination which will amount to great injustice. Cross-examination is the only weapon with the adverse side to test the veracity and the correctness of the statement' of the witness who has deposed on oath and if such an order is not interfered with, it is likely to affect the merits of the case and ultimately when' the appeal is filed and the appellate court finds that such a question should have been allowed and non-allowing such a question has prejudiced the party, the case will have to be remanded back to the trial Court which will amount further delay in dispensation of justice. The Rules of procedures are the handmaids of justice and not the mistress of the justice. In this connection, reference may be made to A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 : (AIR 1988 SC 1531)
6. In this view of the matter I, am of the opinion that not allowing cross-examination of the witness by method of pigeon-hole amounts to, having failed to exercise juris-diction so vested in the, court. It, also amounts to acting illegally and with' material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction which will occasion not only failure of justice but also cause irreparable injury to the petitioner.
7. In the result, this revision petition' is allowed the order of the trial Court, dated 20-3-91 is set aside and the application of the petitioner to cross-examine the witness by method of pigeon-hole is allowed. No order as to costs.