HERALD PRASHANT LAL Vs. DORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides.

(2.) THE only question which requires consideration in this case is whether the Court below was right in rejecting the application Exh. 91 preferred by the applicant for permission to place photographs on record which were necessary for the cross-examination of plaintiffs witness No. 1. The Court below has rejected the said application on the ground that no reason is given by the defendant for late production of the said photographs and that negatives have also not been produced. According to the trial Court, the photographs which were sought to be produced, could be of any function. The trial Court further held that since execution of Will is admitted, production of the said photographs was wholly irrelevant.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the photographs were produced in the course of the cross-examination of plaintiffs witness No. 1 only with a view of confront him with the assertion made by him in the deposition that he did not attend any function in question. According to him, the relevant provisions applicable for such situation would be sub-rule (3) of Rule 8-A of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits production of document at the time of cross-examination of the plaintiffs witness. It is, therefore, submitted that the Court below has clearly overlooked this provision while deciding the application below Exh. 91. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant, besides the reasons assigned by the trial Court, also relied upon Order XVIII, Rule 17-A to contend that it was not open to the plaintiff to produce document at such belated stage.