K V SUBRAMANYAM Vs. K MADHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed aggrieved by the order dated 31-7-1999 passed by the Family Court, Secunderabad in I. A.No. 388 of 1999 in O.P.No. 50 of 1996. The husband is the petitioner and the respondent is his wife. The respondent, leading her evidence as R.W. 1, has examined her father as R.W. 2. He was cross-examined by the petitioner and in that process, sought to file letters said to have been written by R.W. 2 to the petitioner and his father, by filing an application under Order XIII Rule 2 of C.P.C. The said application was contested by the respondent alleging that the delay in filing the said documents has not been explained and that the said application has been filed to protract the litigation. The Family Court had accepted the plea of the respondent holding that the delay in filing the letters was not explained and there was no tenable reason to recall R.W. 2 for cross-examination. Hence, this Revision.

(2.) Order XIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure obligates the parties tolitigation to produce all the documentary evidence at or before the settlement of issues. Order XIII Rule 2 comes in aid to the parties to produce the documents at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, if good cause is shown to the satisfaction of Court for non-production thereof either at or before the settlement of the issues and if the Court is satisfied that the reasons stated are plausible, it is entitled to receive such evidence after recording the reasons for so doing. If this rule is applied, CRP has to be dismissed, as we do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise. But, Order XIII Rule 2 of CPC has got no application to the instant case for the reason that it falls within the exception contained in clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIII of Code of Civil Procedure, which provision permits the filing of the documents while cross- examining the witness produced by the opposite party.

(3.) In the instant case, the documents sought to be introduced and marked are the letters said to have been written by R.W. 2 to the petitioner and his father. Even though the petitioner did not file the same earlier, he is entitled to confront R.W. 2 with the said documents in his cross-examination under Order XIII Rule 2(2) (a) of Code of Civil Procedure. This Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed directing the Family Court, Secunderabad to recall R.W. 2 for further cross-examination enabling the petitioner to mark the documents. However, it is made clear that such marking of the documents is subject to the Rules of Evidence. No costs.