Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sharda Bharadwaj Thr. Husband And ... vs Smt. Mubina Begum on 22 January, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.4058/2017
(Smt. Sharda Bharadwaj v. Smt. Mubina Begum)
Gwalior, Dated : 22.01.2018
Shri Sarvesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
None for the respondent.
Heard.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 28.06.2017 passed by the Court of 6 th Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No.165-A/2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under the provisions of Order 13 Rule (1) sub-rules (1) & (3) (a) read with Section 151, of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) to permit the petitioner to confront the defendant's witnesses with the sale deed, which was executed by defendant Smt. Mubina Begum to show that she may be a pardanashin woman, but she has been going out of her house to transact business relating to her properties, has been turned down.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nawab Saheb v. Firoz Ahmed as reported in 2002 (3) MPHT 414, wherein the High Court on an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC in regard to production of additional evidence in appellate Court held that if a particular document is necessary for the just decision of the case, there is no justification to accept the said document as a piece of evidence. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vasudeo v. Tikaram as reported in 1994 (1) WN 198, wherein the facts were that registered sale deed record, which is maintained in the Office 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.4058/2017 (Smt. Sharda Bharadwaj v. Smt. Mubina Begum) of the Sub-Registrar, was considered to be a public document and it has been held that certified copy of such document can be produced in evidence.
3. Placing reliance on such judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the document with which the petitioner wanted to confront of the defendant is pertaining to the sale deed, which was in relation to a transaction carried out by defendant Mubina Begum, therefore, the application under Order 13 Rule (1) sub-rules (1) & (3) (a) has been wrongly disallowed. Order 13 (1) (1) provides that the parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed alongwith plaint or written statement. Sub- rule (3) provides that nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.
4. Placing reliance on such provisions, it is submitted that since the document is a public document and was a certified copy of the sale deed executed by defendant Mubina Begum, therefore, such document could not have been brushed aside. Similarly, it is submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the provisions contained in Order 13 Rule (1) sub-rules (1) & (3) (a), CPC and has wrongly rejected the application merely on the ground that the plaintiff's witnesses have earlier admitted that defendant Mubina Begum is a pardanashin woman. The effect of the matter is 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.4058/2017 (Smt. Sharda Bharadwaj v. Smt. Mubina Begum) that if there is an admission in regard to Mubina Begum to be a pardanashin woman, but if there is a document, which shows otherwise, then such document can be permitted to be produced for cross-examination of the witnesses in terms of the provisions contained in Order 13 Rule (1) sub-rules (1) & (3) (a) and, therefore, the trial Court erred in dismissing the application on the ground that there is an admission of the plaintiff's witnesses about status of the defendant.
5. In view of such facts, the impugned order is quashed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to confront the witnesses with the documents.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge meh/-
MEHFOOZ AHMED 2018.02.05 15:01:24 +05'30'