Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIII was introduced in the Civil Procedure Code by the Amendment Act of 1976. It will be relevant, therefore, to advert to its Statement of Objects and Reasons. It is stated therein that Rule 2 provides that documents which should have been produced at an earlier stage shall not be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, unless the Court is satisfied that there is good cause for non-production of such documents at earlier stage and that the rule was being amended to clarify that the documents which are produced for cross-examination shall not fall within the ambit of the rule. It appears, therefore, clear that the mischief sought to be removed by way of the amendment is that documents covered by Rule 2 should not find their way in the evidence by way of cross-examination, circumventing thereby the said provision of law. Thus, if this was the intention for amending Rule 2 and for introducing sub-rule (2), the view taken by me appears to be correct. I, therefore, hold that the documents which can be introduced in the evidence by way of cross-examination are those which are not meant to prove the original case of a plaintiff or of a defendant as set out in the plaint or written statement, and further those produced for the sole purpose of refreshing the memory of the witnesses.
7. Now, in the light of the above discussion, it only remains to determine whether the documents sought to be introduced by the petitioners in the evidence during the cross-examination of the respondent no. 1 are or are not falling in the aforesaid category. Mr. Lawande submitted that he does not press at this stage for the introduction in the evidence of the letters mentioned above in the plaintiffs cross-examination, but he reserves his right to introduce such documents with the leave of the trial Court. He thus submitted that he restricts his case to the introduction in the evidence of the house tax receipts only, since the said receipts are public documents and manifestly cannot be said to be manipulated or fabricated. Mr. Peres Cardozo, however, contended that though the house tax receipts are public documents, the fact remains that the petitioners are not entitled to introduce the said documents during the cross-examination of the plaintiff no. 1. Petitioners may seek and will definitely obtain the leave of the Court to introduce them in due course of the trial, he further submitted.
8. It is common ground that the subject matter of the suit is a house and that the ownership thereof is disputed by both the parties, both plaintiffs and defendants claiming that it belongs to them. This being the case, it is manifest and clear that the house tax receipts are documents meant to prove the ownership of the house by the defendants/petitioners herein. In other words, the said documents are sought to be introduced in evidence to prove the original case of the defendants/petitioners herein, as set out in the written statement. Hence, and in the view taken by me as regards Order XIII, Rule 2(2) Civil Procedure Code. It was not permissible for the defendants/petitioners herein to introduce the said documents in the course of the cross-examination of the plaintiff no. 1. Thus, by disallowing the introduction of the said documents in evidence during the course of the cross-examination of the plaintiff no. 1, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji, has not committed any error in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (PANAJI-GOA)
C.R.A. No. 103 of 1984
Decided On: 14.09.1984
Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar and another Vs. Raghuvir Sinai Lotlekar and another
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. G.F. Couto, J.
Citation: 1984 Mh. L.J. 938.
