Law Commission Report
Twenty-Second Law Commission Of India Report
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA Urgent Need to Amend Rule 14(4) of Order VU of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Report No. 278 March, 2023 The 22" Law Commission was constituted by Gazette Notification for a period af three years vide Order No. PNo. 4502 11/201 8-Admn-ffl(LA) dated 21" February, 2020 issued mn the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, New Delhi. The term ofthe 22nd Law Commission was extended vide Order No. PA Na, SOO Lf 2245/2022-Admn CLA) dated 22 February, 2 7 rson, three full-time Members, Member The Law Carnmission consists of a Chaimpe Secretary, two ex-officio Members and two pari-time Merabers, Chairperson tonite Justice Rite Raj Awasthi Full-time Members Hon'ble Justive KT. Sankaran Prof. (Or) Anand Paliwal Prof. DP. Verma Es-offielo Members Dy. Nien Chandra, Law Secretary Dr, Reeta Vasishta, Legislative Secretary Part-time Members Shri M. K.arunanithi Prof, (Dr) Rake Arya The Law Commission js located at:
2" and 4 Floor, "8? Wing Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market New Delhi-} 10003, Momber Recretary Dr. Niten Chandra Law Officers Smt, Varsha Chandra : Joint Seoretary & Law Offic Shri Atul K.arnar Chupta : Deputy Law Officer Legal Cousuliants Shri Rishi Mishra Shri Gauray Yadav Shri Shubhane Chaturvedi Shri Davinder Singh Thetext of this Report is available on the Website af a Gavenunent of India Law Cormmission of India Bate: 28 March, 2023 Jam pleased to forward you Report Ne. 278 of the Law Commission of India on "Ureent Need to Amend Rale 14(4) of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."
The Parliament had amended large portions of the Code of Civil Procedure by virtue of the Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002. The Salem Advocates Bar Association had sought to challenge the constitutional validity of the amendments that were so introduced. The same was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advecates Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union af India [((2003) 1 SCC 49}. However, the Hon'ble Suprome Court set up a Committee headed by Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, the then Chairperson of the Law Commission of India to formulate modalities for the manner in which Section 89 and other provisions that had been introduced by way of the said amendments were to be operationalised, While reviewing the suggestions made by the Committee in Selent Advecates Bar Association, Tamil Nady. Union of India (2003) 6 SCC 344], the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that an anomaly had crept in Rule 14(4} of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure and it needed to be rectified expeditionsly.
While in the absence of any corrective measure undertaken by the Parliament, the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds the field; however, the 22° Law Commission is of the considered opinion that the anomaly be resolved through legislative amendment at the earliest opportunity for the convenience of the courts, lawyers, litigants, and the general public. The Law Commission of India has therefore, swe moto taken up the subject-matter for consideration and prepared this Report which is being forwarded for your kind perusal.
With warmest regards, Yours sincerely, (Fustice Ritu Ra} Awasthi) Shri Kiren Rinju Hon*ble Minister for Law & Justice Government of India Shastri Bhawan New Dethi -110001, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Commission gratefully acknowledges the commendable assistance rendered in the preparation of this Report by Mr. Rishi Mishra, Mr. Gauray Yadav, Mr. Shubhang Chaturvedi and Mr. Davinder Singh, who worked as Consultants. We place on record our deepest appreciation for their valuable contribution.Report No. 278
Ureent Need to Amend Rule 14(4) of Order VU of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 TABLE OF CONTENTS
8. No. . Title Page Nea.
hk infradaction sss I
2. | Legislative History of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 of Grder Vl | 2 3, Relevant Legal Previsions | §
4. Supreme Court decisions on the Amendment Acts af 1999 and i} 2002
5. Conclusion i
6. Recommendations ae:
Urgent Need to Amend Rule 14(4) of Order VU of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 i. Introduction Li The Cade of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC™) is the Code that governs the Court's practice and procedure in all civil disputes. Over the ears, the CPC has acted as a beacon guiding the settlement of civil disputes in india. The attention has always heen to ensure that all disputes, regardiess of the economic and social status of the parties involved, are esolved in a timely, just, and equitable manner.
pte ha Right from the inception of the first Civil Procedure Code in 1859. amendments have been made to it from time to time. The first code, an amalgamation of four draft bills. was subjected to amendments soon after was passed, By 1863-64, it was thought that the 1889 Code needed to be redrawn and so the provisions of the entire 1859 Code were rearranged in a systematic manner.' Certain provisions were added as well resalting in the creation of the CPC, 1877. By 1879 itself. as many as 130 sections of the Cade of 1877 were amended and by 1882. an entirely new Code came into being." While the general principles on which the 1882 Code operated were considered to be 'areel sly sound and effective, certain provisions were thought to be too rigid. Since conflicting fudicial opinion developed regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the Code, it was considered necessary to recast the Code. As a result, the 1908 Code came into being.' Since then, innumerable amendments have been made, both to the "body of the Code" and the "Schedule." In 1999 and 2002, the legislature introduced certain other amendments which sought to update the Code in keeping with the present requirements.
i Law Carmmmission of India, "27th Report on the Code of Mivil Grocedure, 1908" (December, 1984}. B : :
13 These amendments have attempted to ensure that the CPC remains abreast of the changing landscape of the legal field. Nowever, there are instances where as a result of the amendments, certain anomalies creep in.
Considering the length and breadth of the effect of CPC, it becomes umperative to rectify these anomalies at the earliest.
4 In the sarne vein, the 22nd Law Commission sue mot identified an anomaly that erept in through the 1989 and 2002 Amendment Acts of the Cre and considered it necessary to rectify. The Commission felt that amendment of sub-rule (4) of rule [4 of Order VH of the Code of Civil Procedure is required as pointed out by the Hon "ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocates Bar Assaciation, Tamil Nadu y. Union of fnedia'
2. Legislative History of Sab-rule (4) of Rule 14 af Order VIE 2.4 Rule 14 has been amended twice - in 1999 and again in 200%. Prior to the 1999 Amendment, Rule 14 of Order VU read as follows:
"Ed, Production of document an which plaintiff sues. (1) Where a plaintuf sues upon a document in his posseasion or power, he shall produce tin Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint.
(2) List of other documents. --Where he relies on any other documents (whether in his posseasion or power or not} as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a Het to he added or annexed to the plaint.* 22 The Law Commission in its 163rd Report titled "The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1997" proposed amendments to Rale 14.
The Report recommended that:
"2.23 () Clause 1? af the Amendment Bil praposes chisges in rule 9 Order FH dealing with the procedure on adeutting plaints. The proposal iy to substitute rule 9 in Order VIL This may be effected subject to the caveat that the service of summons should not be by the platadiff but through ihe court as discussed hereinabove while dealing wh Order F. * (2005) 6 SCC 344. ATR 2008 sc 3 33353, "JM Shelat. Afulla onthe Cade of Chil Procedure {054 (NM Tripathi Pyt Lid, Bombay, lth edn, 1984).2
(i) The additional grounds on which the plaint can be rejected as proposed in sub-clause Gi) of clause 17 of the Amendment Bill could also be included subjeci to the rider that it should be clearly indicated thal the failure referred fo in each of the proposed sub-clauses fe), () and (2) in rule 17 of Order Vi, should be a repeated failure.
(iti) The proposed substitution of rule i4 is a step in ike right direction but the only thing suggested by the participants ~ with which the Lew Commission agrees -- is that the plaintiff should net be compelled to file the original document where he anprehendy that it may be fampered with while in fhe custody af the registry of the Court.
ft should be open to the plaintiff ta fle the xerox copies of those documents which he anprehends may be tampered with while in the eustody of the registry ef the caurt Rut, he shall be under an obligation to produce the same at the trial or as and when called upon by the court, IRL A aumber of participants suggested that sub-rule (3) of rule i should be so warded thai for special reasons te be recarded, the court should be empowered to allow the plaintiff te produce a document or copy thereof which he has not filled with the platnt. According fo the Cosunission, this ix a goad sugeestion. Sub-ride 3 of rule [4 may aecordingly be re-casi so as fo enable ihe court to permit the plaintiff te produce a document or a copy thereaf which he has nol filed along with the pleint.
fi) The proposal io delete existing rule 13 of Order Vil is in order in view of rule 14(2) of Order FH as proposed in the Amendment Bill.
fy Sab-clause (F) in clause £7 af the Amendinent Bil prepases te enuf the words "without the leave of the Court in sub-rule (1) af rude i8. This praposal ix consistent with the formulation in praposed rife i ed ar 2416 Climuse [8 of the Amendment Bill --ft} The praposed substituted rife din Order VII provides thai the defendant shall at or befare the Jirst heaving ar within such time as the Court stay permit, which shall not be hevond 30 days from the date of service of summons on the defendant, present a written statement of his defence. This aspect has been discussed and dealt with when dealing with Order F hereinabove. For the reasens mentioned earlier, the periods prescribed for fling the writfen statement shoud be as suggested by fhe Law Commission while discussing the propesed amendments in Order F (it) Rule [4 sought to be boserted in Order FEE is on the same lines as the proposed substituted rule 14 of Order VIL Therefore, whatever we Adve xald with respect to praposed rule 14 of Order Il applies in all respecis ia this praposal as weil.
(i) The proposed deletion of rule 8A is consistent with proposed rule 1A and is, therefore, unobjectionable except to the extent that the power of the caurt te permit the defendunt to produce a document, which he did not produce with the written statement, should he retained with the rider that such power could be exercised anly for special reasons to be recarded".® 2.3 These recommenslations were accel ted by the Parliament and by the Amendment Act of 1999, the old Rule 14 was substituted by the new rule which contained four sub-rules. The Amendment Act of 1999 substituted the ald Rule i4 as follows:
"14, Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relles -- (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or reliex upon dociemnent in his possession or power ia support of bis claim, he shall enter such documents ina list, and shall produce # in Court when the plaints ix presented &y him and shall, af the same time deliver the document and a capy thereof, te be filled with the plain.
(2) Where any such document is nat in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shail, wherever possible, state in whoxe possession ar power if Is,
3) Where any such dacuiment ar a copy thereas ix not fled with the plaint under this rule, it shall not be allowed te be received in evidence on behalf af the plaintiff at the hearing af the suit.
fi Nothiag in this rule shell apply to document produced for the CPOxS examination of the plointifis wittesses. or, heared over to a witness merely to refresit his ptemory"' 24 However, sub-rule GQ) of Rule 14 was further amended by the Amendment Act, 2002 (22 of 2002) and was substituted by the present sub-rale (33 which makes it necessary to obtain the leave of the court fer allowing a document to be fled in court which was not filed along with the plaint or annexed in a List.
The present sub-rule 3 of rule 14 reads s as follows:
"id. Production of document on which ae sues or pelies. --
(3) 4 dociment whieh owssht to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when ihe pleint is pr evened ar io be entered in the list to be added ar annexed to the platat dul is rol produced or entered accordingly. shall not, without the * Law Commission of India, "}63rd Report on the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) BiH, 1907"
(November, 1998), * Secon 17, The Cade of Civil Proved Amendment) Act, 1990 (46 of 1999) available af:
http vichdslsa gov inright_ox enurues regulationsisa/pad? filea'coc- 1999 pdf (last visited Feb G8, 20235, leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit"®
3. Relevant Legal Provisions Rale 14 of Order VEL 3.1 Order VU of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the subject "Plaint'.
Rale 14 of Order Vil deals with "Production of document on which plait sues or relics".
Order VU Rule 14 is reproduced below:
"Ia, Praduction of decument on which plaintiff sues av relies. --(1) Vaere a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upan document in US possession oF power ue support of his claim, he shail enter such documents in a list, and shall produce if in Court when the plaint is presented by hin and shell, at the same time deliver the document and @ copy thereak, te be fled witht ibe plain.
(2) Where any such document is not in ihe possession or power of the plainntfl he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power IS, (2) A document which ought to be produced in Court dy the plaintiff when the platnt ix presented, or fo be entered in the lst to be added or annexed to the pleint but is not produced ar entered accordingly, shall nal, withoud the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the heaving af the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule a ely fe document produced for ihe craxs-exumncrlon of the wiffs' witnesses, or handed aver io a witness merely fo refresh pe memory, °° 3.2 Sub-rule (1) of Rule {4 of Order VIE provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon a document in bis possession or power in support of bis claim, be shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the sume time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be Aled with the ® Seotion 8 The Code of Civil Procedure {Amendment} Act, 2002 (22 of PQO7} available ar hitps.//districts ecourts. gow, in/sites'defhult/ Ales THES 20CODEa2GOPM20C I VILSG20PROCEDURE S28 AMENDMENTS 29802 0AC TeatC2g2020)2 pdf (last visited Feb 10, 2023).
he Cade of Civil Procedure, 1908, Lo) plait. Sub-rule () of Rule }4 states that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
3.3 Sub-rales (Lj and (2) of Rule 14 of Order VIL were substituted by the Cade of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999}, while sub-rules (3) and (4) were substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 (22 af 2002}.
bad he Before the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 (22 of 2002), Rule I4 of Order VIE did newt contain similar provisions as in sub-rales (3) and (4). However, similar provisions were available in Rule 18 of Order Vi which existed then. Rule 18 was subsequently repealed by the Code olChal Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 (22 af 2002).
Pale 1S af Order Vii:
Lo us Rule 18 of Order VU titled "nadmiissibility of document not produced wher plain' is fled" was repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 (22 of 2002). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 before being repealed read as follows:
"Noffung in this rule applies to documents produced for cross-
examnudion ef the defendant'y witnesses. or b1 answer fo any case Set up by the defendant or handed over to a witness merely ta refresh his memory, °° Lod a By the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 (22 of 2002), a simular provision (excluding the expression "or in answer to any case set *®© Section 8 The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (22 of 2002) available at: hitps://disiricts ecourts. gov. imsites/defiault/ files PFHE SS 20CODE M200 F8a20€1 VIL ZOPROCE DURE "eg o2B AMENDMENT 29M 20AC TT o2Col 02002 pdf (last visited Feb 09, 2023}, § up by the defendant') was inserted as sub-rule (4) of Rule 14. However, instead of the expression "defendant's witnesses', the expression "plaintif's witnesses" was inserted, Order VET Rule LA:
37 Order VHT deals with "Written Statement, Set Off and Counter Claim."
3.8 Rule LA of Order VHIE provides for the "Duty of the defendant to produce documents upon whieh relief is claimed or relied upon by him." Sub-nie (1) of Rule 1A provides that where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies woon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter claim, be shall enter such document ina lst, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and-shall, at the same lime, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1A states that a document which onght to be produced in Court by the defendant under the rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on ins behalf at the hearing of the suit. Sub-rule (4) of Rule TA reads as under:
"éd) Nothing in ihis rele shall apply to documents ~ fai produced Jor the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or
(i) hemded over to a withess merely to refresh his memory." mi 3.8 Rule TA of Order VIN was inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment} Act, 1999 (46 af 1999)"* and sub-rule 3 substitated by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Aci, 2002 (22 af 2002).)? Sub-rules *T Rale 1A(4), Order VU, The Code of Chl Proeedure, 1908.
* Section 18, The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) available at:
hitps.//chdsisa.gow in/right reenwrules_regulationslsa/pdt' files'eoc-1999.pdf (last visited Feb 10, 2023 }.
ction 9, The Code of Chil _Pracedure (Amendment? Act, 2002 (22 of 2002} avadatle cae 'districts, Geourts. gov. fin teosAdek THES e20CODESA2NOFGoZOC LV IL8s20 PROCEDURE 202002. pa {last visited Feb 09, 2023), wad 2, 3, and 4 as incorporated in Rule 1A by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 (22 of 2002) were originally inserted in Rule 1 by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976 (104 of F1976}.'8 3.10 Sub-rule (6) of Rule | of Order VU as amended in 1976 (exe hiding 4 portion) was incorporated in Sab-rule (4) of Rule LA of Order VU by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 (22 of 2602}. The Sub-
rule is reproduced below:
"(6) Nothing in Sub-rule (3) shall apply to documents provided for ihe cross-examtination of plaintiff's witnesses ar in answer to any case setup by the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or handed over ta a witness merely to refresh his memory. °'° Rule 1a) of Order XE:
3.14 Sub-rule (1) of Rule | of Order X11 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 along with the plaint or written staiement.
Sub-rule (3) of Rule | of Order XU reads thus:
"OH Nothing in Sub-rude (1) shall apply to documents ~ fey produced Joe the cross-examination of the wibiesses of the other Paro.
ob bs (8) handed over te a witness merely to refresh his memory.
3,12 Rule | of Order XU] was substituted byt the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999), Rule 2 of Order NHI tiled "Effect of non-production of documents" was repealed by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999). However, sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 was incorporated as sub-rule (3) of Rule | by the amendment!' " Supra note 5, at 1063-64, ff at 1064, ® Rule 13a) Order MEE, The Cade of Civil Procedure, 1908, '? Sention 23, The Code of Civil Procedure (Amend ment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) avaiable an btipichdslsa Lov ivtght_ mx enufnies regulationsisa/pdt files/oan-1999. pdf) flast visited Peb 10, 2003 2023).
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872:
3.13 Section 143 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with "Cross- examination as tO previous statements in writing." The Section provides for the cross examination of a witness regarding ihe statements previously made by him without showing such statements. Further, if the ediness is ta be contradicted, bis attention must be drawn to those part(s) of the statements which are to be used for contradicting him.
It reads as under
td ' fey Bin "IES. Cross-excunination as lo previous statements in ws iting. os A witvess nity be cross-excnained us fo previous statements made by hin Invwriting or recwed into writing, and relevant ta puitiers in question, withoud suck wring being shown to him, or beiag proved: but, if it is intended to comradict him by ihe writing, is attention must, before the writing can be braved, be called io those parts of it which are to he used for the purpose of pegs : ai contradicting him section E54 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
3.45 Section 154(1) of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross examination by the adverse party?
Section 1$4 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:
"134. Question by purty fo his own wittess, --- (2) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person whe calls a witiess to put ony questions to fim which might be pul it cross-examinalion by the adverse party.
(2) Nothing be this section shail disentiile the person so permitted under sub-section (1), to reds en an iy part af the evidence af such witness."
3.16 Normally, a party calling a witness wonld nat be entitled to cross examine him. Only the other party would be entitled to cross examine him. Section IS4 is an exception to this general principle.
2 The Hniian Evidence Act, 1872 8 hid
4. Supreme Court decisions on the Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002 4.1 The Amendment Act 46 of 1999 and 22 of 2002 came into force on 1-7- 2002, Salem Advocate Bar Association filed Writ Petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the amendments made te the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amendment Act 46 of 1999 and Amendment Act 22 of 2002.
4.2 The Constitutional validity of the Amendments was upheld by the Supreme Court in Safest Advocate Bar Association v. Union of india"
The Sapreme Court, after hearing the learned counsel and the amicus curige Shri CS. Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate, thought it ft to appoint a commilice.
howas beld thus:
"id. in our opinion, the suggestion so mete merits a favourable consideration. With the constitution of such a Committee, any creases which require fo be ironed out can be identified aad appr ehensi ions which mey exist in the minds of ihe iigating public or the lawyer's clarified. As suggested, the Committee will consist of a Judge sitting or retired nominated by the Chief Justice of india and the other members of the Connnitive will be Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate, Mfr. Aran Jaitley, Senfor Advocate, Ade. CLS, Paiva Senior Advocate and Ade, DUE. Subba Reo, Chairman, Bar Couneod of India. This Committee will be at liberty to co-op any other arember andl to take assistance af any member af the Bar or Asseciction....""
In pursuance of the same, a committee under the chairmanship of Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, former Judge of the Supreme Court and former Chairman of the Law Commission of India was formed, aa After the Committee submitted its reports, the Supreme Court disposed of the case in Salem Advocate Bar Assaciation, Tamil Nadu v. Union af fndia?' After considering Report number | submitted by the Cormmittee, the supreme Court dealt with the various amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure by the 1999 and 2002 Amendment Acts. While dealing with Rule 14(4) of Order VU, the Supreme Court held thus O33 1 SCC 48: AIR 20 BUS SC 05} 6 SOC 344: AIR.2005 § 10
5.
"34. Order Vil Rule 14 deals with production of documents which are the basis of the suit or the documents in plaintiff's possession or power. These dacuments are to be entered in the list of documents and produced in the Court with plaint. Grder FIT Rule 14(3) requires leave of Court to be chiained jor production of the dacuments later. Order VHT Rule 14(4) reads as under:
Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross exapunation of the plaintiffs wittesses, or, handed over ta a witness merely to refresh his memory.
35. bt the aforesaid Rule, it is evident that the words 'plaintifis witnesses have heen mentioned as a result of mistake seems to have been committed by the lesasfanwe. The words ought to he 'defendent'y witnesses'. There is a similar provision in Order Vill Rule LAfd) which applies to a defendant. li reads as under:
"Nothing ia this rule shall apply to documents -
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or (fh) hemeded over fo a witiess morely to refresh his memory."
36. Order VH relates to the praduction of documents bv the plaintiff whereas Order VIET relates to production af documents by the defendant. Under Grider VIM Rufe TAG) a document not produced by the defendant can be confronted to the plaintiffs witiess duriag cross-examination. Siwilarly the plaintiff can also confrant the defendant's witness with a document during cross-examination. By mistake, instead af 'defendant's witnesses, the words 'plaintiff's wittesses' have been mentioned in Order WE Rule 2404), To avoid any confusion, we direct that till the legislature corrects the mistake, the words 'plaintiff's witesses, would he read as 'defendant's witnesses! in Order FH Rude 14 64). We, however. hone that the mistake would be expeditiously carrected by the legislature."
Canclusion In sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 of Order VU, mention is made of the cross-
examination of the plaintiff's witnesses. A plaintiff cannot, except as provided in Section 154 of the Evidence Act, put questions which might be put in crogs-examination to his own witnesses. Sub-rale (3) of Rule 1 of Order XUP also makes the position clear when the expression "eress-
examination of the witness of the other party" is employed therein.
Therefore, the anomaly in sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 of Order VH is evident. The words "plaintiffs witnesses" occurring in sub-rule (4) of Rule [4 of Order VII require to be corrected as "defendant's witnesses'.
14~« 33 3.2 The Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Uaion of India, dealt with the various amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure by the 1999 and 2002 Amendment Acts. While dealing with Rule 14(4) of Order Vii, the Supreme Court thus took note of this anomaly ard held that the words "plaintiffs witnesses" are to be read as 'defendant's witnesses' tll the time the legislature corrects i, However, even after the Hon"ble Supreme Court pointed it out in the year 2005, the Parliament has not so far made any amendment to Rule 14 (4) ef Order VI to rectify the anomaly.
&, Recommendations 6.1 The Commission is of the considered view that sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 of Order VH requires tu be amended by substituting the words "the defendant's witnesses" for the words "the plaintiff's witnesses", The Conunisston recommends accordingly.
see N Neves lfustice Ritu Raj Awasthi] Chairperson x. 8 u Rat NY & ss Low N we a s + ERT ag AAT ban LJustice KT. Sankaran} [ Prof. (OF) Anand Palbvall a [Prof. D.P, Vermal Member Member Member w Ne a coe Netty < Le ° (Dn. Niten Chandra] iDr. Reeta Vasishtal Member Secretary and Member (Ex-Officio) Memiber (Ex-Officio) = ¢2008) @ SOC 344: AIR ZOOS SC 3353.
12Core Fae eee jUh. Rake Aryal Member (Part-time) 13 " fK. Rarunanith)] Member (Part-time)