RANAJIT K Vs. IBCON P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the stage of admission, the respondents have put in appearance through a counsel, hence, the matter is heard on merits.

(2.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.6.81 passed by learned Small Cause Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 9723 of 1980 (Old No. O. S. 266 of 1980) preventing the petitioner from confronting certain documents to the witness (DW-1) during the course of cross-examination for the purpose of testing the veracity of 'the witness. The learned Judge is of the view that since the documents have not been, produced in the suit at the stage of production of documents, the same cannot be allowed to be produced in the case. It is also further held that sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 2 of Or. XIII of CPC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), is not available to . the petitioner.

(3.) Obviously, the learned Judge has not looked into sub-rule (2) (a) of R. 2 of Or. XIII of the code. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Or. XIII provides that no documentary evidence which is not produced at the stage of production as required by Rule 1 of Or. XIII, shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court for the non-production thereof and the court receiving any such evidence shall have to record the reasons for doing so. But, as far as the production of the documents during the course of the cross-examination for the purpose of testing the veracity of a witness is concerned, it has not been doubted at any time even prior to the addition of sub- rule (2) of Rule 2 of Or. XIII of of the Code, that such documents can be produced during the course of cross-examination. Addition of sub- rule (2)s of Rule 2 of Or XIII of the Code is only the recogojtiop of that established legal position. " Sub -Rule (2) has been added by the Code of Civil procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 Act No. 104 of 1976 on the recommendation of the Law Commission made in its 27th report. The said Rule is as follows: " (2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents,- (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witness of the other party, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory." From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the cause for the non-production of the documentary evidence which is required to' be shown as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Or 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-examintion 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.