Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Order 13 deals with production, impounding and return of documents. Rule 1 deals with original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues. It states 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 plaint or written statement. Rule 3 carves out an exception which says that nothing in Sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Order 13 applies to the plaintiff as well as defendant for the purpose of production of documents. Similarly, Order 7, Rule 14 deals with production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 says that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. Sub-rule (4) however carves out an exception and says that nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Similarly, Order 8 deals with written statement, set-off and counter-claim. Rule 1A of Order 8 deals with duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1A of Order 8 says that where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 1A of Order 8 carves out an exception and says that nothing in this rule shall apply to documents - (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

17. In the case of Miss T.M. Mohana v. V. Kannan (supra), the Madras High Court has taken the view that it is seen from the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1(2) and (6) Order 8, Rule 8A(1) and (3) and Order 13, Rule 2(2) that at every stage at which the defendant is called upon to produce the documents, an exception is always made with reference to documents produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses or the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party or in answer to a case set up by the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the suit or with a view to refresh memory. In other words, the obligation to produce the documents relied upon by the defendant at the stages contemplated under Order 8, Rule 1(2), Order 8, Rule 8A(1) and by both parties under Order 13, Rule 1, C.P.C. has been done away with in all those cases with reference to documents produced for cross-examination. An answer to the contention raised by Mr. Hakim is found from and negatived by Madras High Court and it is held that the benefit of the production of a document for the purpose of cross-examination can be availed of by the defendant with reference to all witnesses of the plaintiff including the plaintiff. The expression 'plaintiff's witnesses' in Order 8, Rule 1(6) and Order 8, Rule 8A(3) would take in not only the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff, but also the plaintiff himself when he is examined as a witness in support of his case. Avowedly, the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1(6) and Order 8, Rule 8A(3) are applicable to defendants as they contemplate the cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff by the defendant and documents being put to them without any distinction being made regarding such witnesses as party witnesses and other witnesses. Those provisions are, therefore, intended to make available the benefit of the exception to the defendant generally with reference to all witnesses of the plaintiff including the plaintiff. The Madras High Court has further taken view that Order 7, Rule 18(2) C.P.C. gives the benefit of such an exception to the plaintiff while the defendant's witnesses are being cross-examined. Order 8, Rule 1(6) and Order 8, Rule 8A(3) extends such benefits to the defendants when the plaintiff's witnesses are cross-examined. On the other hand, Order 13, Rule 2, being a general provision applicable to both the plaintiff as well as the defendant, makes available to both the benefit of the production of such documents during the course of the cross-examination of the other party. Thus, the benefit of the production of a document for purposes of cross-examination can be availed of either by the plaintiff or by the defendant with reference to the witnesses of the other party. Having regard to the use of the expression 'defendant's witnesses' in Order 7, Rule 18(2), and the expression 'plaintiff's witness' in Order 8, Rule 1(6) and Order 8, Rule 8A(3) and the expression 'witnesses of the other party' in Order 13, Rule 2(2)(a) C.P.C. it is difficult to confine the benefit conferred under Order 8, Rule 1(6) and Order 8, Rule 8A(3)(a) C.P.C. only to cases of witnesses other than the party. This gives complete answer to the issue raised by the respondent in the present petition. The Court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted by the Madras High Court. The view taken by the learned trial Judge is contrary to the view expressed by the Madras High Court and it is also contrary to the statutory provisions. The petitioner's application cannot be thrown on the ground that Order 13, Rule 2 has been deleted from the statute.

18. In the case of Ranjit Kanungo v. Ibcon Pvt. Ltd., (supra), the Karnataka High Court has taken the similar view and held that from the provisions of Order 13, Rule 2 it is clear that the cause for the non-production of the documentary evidence which is required to be shown as per Sub-rule (i) of Rule 2 of Order 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.