A party has a right to cross-examine the witnesses on the genuineness of the documents and to challenge the documentary evidence. The trial court's refusal to allow the cross-examination and to permit the defendant to take photographs of the vouchers through a handwriting expert was illegal and amounted to a material irregularity in the procedure.

JUDGMENT - 1. This revision is filed by the original defendant No.1 in a suit filed by one M/s. Omprakash Shioprakash, now pending in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Akola. It appears that the said plaintiff is seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 13,489.82 on the allegation that the plaintiff had dealings with defendant No.1 and another defendant No.2 and the amount due is recoverable. He pleads as agreement that defendant No.1 was to clear off the liability of defendant No.2 and inter se between the parties, defendant No.1 was to recover the amount from defendant No.2 and pay the plaintiff. Thus, it appears that between defendants also some agreement is pleaded by the plaintiff. The facts are not very material for the purpose of decision of this revision.

2. After the written statement was put in, in which defendant No.1 appears to have challenged the claim of the plaintiff on all counts, including the genuineness of the transaction, some documents were filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Those documents include some 10 vouchers. It appears that these documents were produced on 16-2-1972 and thereafter the case was fixed sometimes in July for evidence. One Kaluram was produced by plaintiff as witness No.1.

3. It is not in dispute before me and I take it from the learned counsel appearing for both the parties that while this Kaluram was being cross-examined, the counsel appearing for defendant NO.1 the present applicant wanted to ask certain questions relating to these vouchers. At that stage, the learned Judge pointed out to the counsel that the documents were not exhibited and, therefore, he should not ask questions. Upon this it appears that the learned counsel stated on the list of documents that he had no objection for exhibiting these vouchers. Further cross-examination was thereafter allowed by the learned Judge. One Ratanlal was called by the plaintiff as its witness No. 2 the said witness was cross-examined and some questions were put upon these documents also. However, a complaint is being made that defendant No.1 wanted to challenge the contents of the exhibits i.e. these 10 vouchers being Exhs. Nos. 30 to 39 and wanted to put questions in cross-examination for that purpose. The learned Judge appears to have declined pointing out to the counsel that the documents were exhibited. This necessitated an application which is Exh. No. 57. The said application does not give the nature of the questions nor specify the points. The learned Judge passed an order immediately, it appears, by saying that the documents have been admitted to be exhibited by defendant No. 1s lawyers; sufficient questions have also been put in the matter, and thus rejected the application. This order is under challenge. On the same day, Exh. 55 was also put in by which the defendant No.1 sought permission to take photographs of the said document. The application states that after Ratanlal was examined who appears to be P. W. 2, it has become necessary to get those documents examined by the Hand-writing Expert. It may be stated that this Ratanlal is defendant No.2 and was called by the plaintiff to support the case pleaded by them as their own witness. It has already been mentioned that plaintiff has pleaded a specific case relating to inter se liability between these two defendants.

4. Against these two orders refusing the photographic examination through Hand-writing Expert of the documents and also permitting cross-examination, the defendant No.1 has moved this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. It is not also in dispute that these Exhs. 30 to 39 are the vouchers and are the material evidence relating to liability to the defendants and particularly, defendant No.1.

5. Now, Mr.Mohta appearing for the original plaintiff-non-applicant No.1 before me, argues that this is not a fit case where this Court be pleased to exercise its powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He goes on to argue that the case has not been decided, and i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document