Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. He submits that as per submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the defendant before the Commissioner at the time of exhibiting the documents, the defendant has relied upon the Order XI, Rule 1(7)(c)(iii) to refresh the memory of the plaintiff's witness but normally the documents are shown to the witness to refresh the memory of its own witness but not during the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness.

10. Mr. Ghosh submits that Order XIII Rule 1, Order VII Rule 14 and Order VIII Rule 1A permits the parties to produce documents during cross- examination but the said provisions are not applicable to the suits of Commercial matters.

"159. Refreshing memory. A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory.

The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct.

When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory. - Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document :

Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original.

An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises."

30. It is very surprising that the defendant has shown the documents to the witness without any leave from this Court nor the copy of the same was supplied to the Counsel for the plaintiff. Admittedly, the said documents were not disclosed by any of the parties nor the said documents were available on record of the case.

31. The defendant has taken the shelter of Order XI Rule 1(7)(c)(iii) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The said provision provides merely to refresh his memory. The defendant without the leave of the Court and without supply of the copy of the same to the defendant shown the document to the witness at the time of cross-examination but the questions put to the witness with regard to the said document is no way connected with refresh his memory. The defendant put the questions on the contents of document and subsequently, other four documents were shown vide question No. 294 and put the question that to identify the said documents as bill-cum-challans being consignee copies. Considering the above, this Court finds that the documents shown to the witness during cross-examination and the question put to the witness is not covered under the purview of Order XI Rule 1(7)(c)(iii) as it was not for refresh of memory. From the trend of examination of witness with respect to the said documents, it is found that the defendant introduced new documents. It is not the case of the defendant that the documents were available on record and only to refresh the memory of the witness, the documents were shown to the witness.