ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY Vs. MESSRS FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision application, the legality of order passed on a petition filed by the Plaintiff purported to be under Order 12, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code') is sought to be questioned by one of the Defendants.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspect is necessary as the ultimate decision, rests on the scope and ambit of the aforesaid provision of law. The Plaintiff has filed a money suit against the State of Orissa and the Orissa Mining Corporation Limited. The petition in question was filed by the Plaintiff requiring the Defendants to admit certain documents and the contents thereof as evidence in the suit. The documents ate 197 in number. Objections were filed by Defendants mainly on the ground that the question of any admission would arise only after relevance of the documents, so far as the suit is concerned, is determined. In addition to this common ground of attack to the maintainability of the petition, the State of Orissa also stated that it was not in a position to admit the so -called documents, without proof of their genuineness.

(3.) WHILE the Plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 asserts that relevance is of no consequence, Defendants (the Petitioner and opposite party No. 1 state that Order 12, Rule 2 is not intended to be utilised as weapon by the Plaintiff for fishing out evidence in support of its case. The contentions require careful consideration. On a harmonious construction of Order 12, Rule 2, it appears that it is applicable only where the parties accept a document to be genuine and no objection to its admissibility is raised. In view of the fact that documents were to be proved against the State Government as directed by the learned trial judge no fruitful purpose was really served by waiving formal proof so far as the present Petitioner is concerned. The object of obtaining admissions is to do away with the necessity of proving facts that are admitted. In this context Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is relevant. Admissions are mainly of three kinds namely: (1) admissions in pleading, which are of two types, (a) actual, that is, those contained in the pleading or in answer to interrogatories, and, (b) constructive, that is those which are merely consequence of form of pleading adopted; (2) admissions by agreement, and (3) admissions by notice. We are concerned with the third kind. The importance of admission consists in the fact that either party may at any stage of the suit move for judgment on the admissions made by the other side. This is apparent from Order 12, Rule 6. Once a fact is admitted it becomes concluded and it is not legally open to the Court to reopen it and reappraise the evidence. There are, however, certain exceptions to this general rule. Where the documents are marked on admission without reservation the contents are not only evidence, but are also taken as admitted the result being, they cannot be challenged either by way of cross -examination or otherwise. But in respect of documents marked on admission dispensing with formal proof, the contents are evidence although the party admitting does not thereby accept the truth of the contents and it is free to challenge the contents by way of cross -examination or otherwise. This was the view expressed by the Bombay High Court in : : A.I.R. 1954 Bom 305 Madholal Singha v. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. Similar view was also expressed by the Calcutta High Court in : : A.I.R. 1967 Cal 191. Messrs Lionel Edwards Ltd. v. State of West Bengal. The other aspect which needs to be highlighted is that the word "document" occurring in Order 12, Rule 2 has reference to proper document produced before the Court on which it can legally act, and which can be admissible in evidence. This view expressed by the Delhi High Court in : : A.I.R. 1976 Delhi 279, Suraj Prakash Vaid v. Union of India and Ors. appears to be a proper exposition of the provisions. It has to be seen whether question of relevance has to be adjudged before action under Rule 2A can be resorted to. Needless to say, as stated above, the purpose of this rule is to avoid unnecessary expenses which a party may be required to incur, to produce documents which re admitted. An admission is a strong piece of evidence and before a party is required to make an admission, an possible efforts have to be made to see that by requiring him to admit a document he is not put to any disadvantageous position. Originally there was no time limit laid down in Rule 2. With a view to expedite disposal of suits a time limit of 15 days for admitting documents has been provided for. The words "within fifteen days from the date of service of notice have been inserted by the Amendment Act, 1976 between the wards "to admit" an "any document." This indicates the sense of urgency intended by the legislature. So extension of time (except as provided in the general provisions of Section 148 of the Code) is available when a party seeks admission of the documents. In the instant case the trial Court has held that relevance of documents was not of any consequence. The documents as indicated above are numerous, and the time prescribed by the provision is limited. It was, therefore necessary that the Court should have looked into the relevance of the documents, so far as the suit is concerned, As rightly contended by the Petitioner, the relevance of the document is required to be determined to obviate the possibility of the admission being utilised in any other proceeding. An evidence fishing exercise is not the legislative intent. The provision aims at avoidance of expenses for production of documents in the suit itself. It is, therefore, imperatively desirable that the nexus of the document with the suit is established. The learned trial judge, therefore, has not acted in accordance with law in holding that the provisions of Order 12, Rule 2A were to be applied to the facts of the case. He has missed to notice that there is no alleviation of expenses as the Plaintiff was required to prove the documents in respect of the Defendant No. 2.