Order XII, Rule 2 of the Code enables the party to call upon other party to admit, within seven days from the date of service of notice, any document and it further provides that in case the other party refuses or neglects to admit the documents after service of such notice, the party giving notice to produce documents can take further steps and in such situation party which refuses or neglects to produce the documents will have to pay the costs of proving those documents. This provision does not enable the defendant to compel the plaintiff to enter the witness box to give evidence. It only entitles the party giving notice to admit documents to recover the costs incurred by it for proving the documents, irrespective of the result of the civil suit.
6. Order XVI, Rule 1 of sub-rule (2) of the Code provides for the procedure which is required to be followed by a party who desires to obtain any summons from the Court for the attendance of any person. Again this provision does not deal with right of the defendant to compel the plaintiff to enter the witness box to give evidence.
7. Though the submission made on behalf of the petitioner/defendant that examination of Madhusudan is necessary to prove the document which the defendant has produced on record appears to be correct at the first blush, in the absence of any such provision and considering the fact that the defendant and plaintiff No. 1 (Madhusudan) are contesting parties, the prayer made on behalf of the defendant cannot be accepted. The defendant has other options available as per law to prove the documents.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
W.P. No. 1772 of 2016
Decided On: 27.11.2018
Ramchandra Krushnaji Dhale Vs. Madhusudan Jhunjhunwala and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Z.A. Haq, J.
Citation: 2019(3) MHLJ 532
