Order XIII, Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code must be read in a restrictive manner and applies only to certain classes of documents, such as those outside the case of each party and those meant to refresh the witness's memory.

JUDGMENT - Couto, G.F. J.:- This revision application gives rise to an interesting question of law as to the interpretation of Order XIII, Rule 2(2), Civil Procedure Code. Can any document be produced during the cross-examination of a witness under the said sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIII, or only some class of documents can be introduced, is the question I am called upon to decide.

2. This question arose in a civil suit pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji. While the plaintiff no. 1 was being cross-examined, the learned advocate appearing for the defendants sought to introduce in evidence two letters, one written by Smt. Laxmibai Sinai Lotlekar to the Village Panchayat of Reis Magos and the other by the said Village Panchayat to the first plaintiff, as well as eight house tax receipts issued in favour of the first defendant in the suit. This was opposed on behalf of the plaintiffs, and ultimately, the learned Judge rejected the application of the defendants on the ground that the said documents did not bear the signature of the witness

3. Mr. A.P. Lawande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji, is erroneous inasmuch as he has not borne in mind the provision of Order XIII, Rule 2(2) Civil Procedure Code. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners were entitled to confront the plaintiffs with any documents during the course of cross-examination by virtue of the aforesaid provision of law. It was, however, contended by Mr. Peres Cardozo, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, that the provision of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIII is not omnibus and as such, it is not permissible for a party to introduce in evidence all kinds of documents during the course of cross-examination. He contended further that, to hold the contrary, would amount to make nugatory the provisions of Order VII, Rules Hand 18 and Order VIII, Rule 1. He urged that actually the only documents that a party can introduce during the course of cross-examination are those meant to contradict a witness and permissible under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel further submitted that no other document can be introduced, since the provisions of Orders VII and VIII require the plaintiff and the defendant, respectively, to either produce the documents in their possession or to give a list of documents on which they will rely to prove their cases.

4. Order XIII, Rule 2(1) provides that no documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party, which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1, shall be received at any subsequent stage o/the proceedings, unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof; and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing. Sub-rule (2) provides that nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. It would appear from the reading of the aforesaid provisions of law that, under sub-rule (2), it will be permissible to produce for cross-examination of a witness of the other party any kind of document, provided of course that such document is admissible. However, one has to read these provisions of law in the context of the Orders VII and VIII Civil Procedure Code. Order VII deals with a plaint and in Rule 14 provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. Sub-rule (2) provides for a list of other documents and lays down that where the plaintiff relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document