SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(AP) 734

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, V.ESWARAIAH
K.V.SUBRAMANYAM - Appellant
Versus
K.MADHAVI - Respondent
Decided On : 09-01-99

The interpretation of Order XIII Rule 2 (2) (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the filing of documents during cross-examination of a witness produced by the opposite party.

Headnote:

Order XIII Rule 2 - Cross-Examination of Witness - The court allowed the revision petition, directing the Family Court to recall a witness for further cross-examination and to mark documents, based on the interpretation of Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Fact of the Case:

The husband filed a revision petition against the Family Court's order, which had rejected his application to file letters as evidence during cross-examination of a witness.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the husband was entitled to confront the witness with the letters during cross-examination under Order XIII Rule 2 (2) (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and allowed the revision petition.

Issues: The issue was whether the husband could file letters as evidence during cross-examination, and if the Family Court erred in rejecting his application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Order XIII Rule 2 (2) (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits the filing of documents while cross-examining a witness produced by the opposite party.

Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, directing the Family Court to recall the witness for further cross-examination and enabling the husband to mark the documents, subject to the Rules of Evidence.

B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top