The scope of the right to open the plaintiff's case is limited to stating the broad outline of the case, indicating the evidence to prove it, and reading relevant portions of some important documents on which particular reliance is placed.

Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE - OPENING OF CASE - SCOPE - COUNSEL ENTITLED TO STATE BROAD OUTLINE OF CASE AND INDICATE EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT - NOT ENTITLED TO TAKE COURT THROUGH RELEVANT PORTIONS OF HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF CORRESPONDENCE - ORDER XVIII, RULE 2, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff's counsel, in opening the case, sought to take the court through relevant portions of hundreds of pages of correspondence, claiming entitlement under Order XVIII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prevailing practice, and English practice.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that Order XVIII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not permit the plaintiff's counsel to read through the correspondence in the opening of the case, as it would involve a waste of the court's time and would require the correspondence to be read multiple times.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff's counsel is entitled to take the court through relevant portions of hundreds of pages of correspondence in the opening of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Order XVIII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as only allowing the plaintiff's counsel to state the broad outline of the case, indicate the evidence to prove it, and read relevant portions of some important documents on which particular reliance is placed.
Final Decision: The court held that the plaintiff's counsel is not entitled to take the court through relevant portions of hundreds of pages of correspondence in the opening of the case.

JUDGMENT-This is a suit in which the plaintiff bases his claim on a partnership which is denied by defendant No.1, or, in the alternative, on co-ownership of certain property, which is also 4enied by defendant No.1 who claims the same as his own.

2. The suit reached hearing before .me at about 1 p. m. yesterday and after pleadings were read, issues were settled some time after the luncheon recess. Thereafter, Mr. M. H. Shah, who appears for the plaintiff, stated that he desired to open the plaintiffs case, which he is entitled to do under Order XVIII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He handed in four compilations containing in the aggregate about 544 pages of correspondence and other, documents and, after stating a few dates, he started taking me through relevant portions of various letters, copies of which were to be found in those compilations. Mr. Shah has contended that he is entitled to take me through the documentary evidence on which he relies for proving the plaintiffs case in the course of his opening.

3. When Mr. Shah continued to do so this morning, I asked him whether he was going to refer to the correspondence, to which he was now drawing my attention, again in the course of his concluding address, to which he answered in the affirmative I also asked Mr. Shah to satisfy me that, in the course of the opening of the plaintiffs case, he was entitled not merely to give me a broad outline of his clients case and indicate the evidence by which he proposed to prove the same, but also to take me through substantial portions of the evidence which would be a matter of proof. Mr. Shahs contention is that he is entitled to do so, first, under the provisions of Order XVIII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, secondly, on the ground that it is the general practice that has been followed in this Court and, thirdly, on the ground that it is in accordance with the prevailing practice in England which is set out by Halsbury (3rd Edn., Vol. 3, para. 103, pp. 68.69).

4. I will proceed to deal with each of these grounds urged by Mr. Shah in support of his contention on the point, as I feel that it is necessary to lay down some limit to the right of the plaintiffs counsel to open his case. It may be mentioned that there is nothing unusual in the present case which would necessitate a very long opening of the case. It may be that the mass of evidence that is sought to be led by one or the other of the parties is considerable, but the case as such presents no unusual or important features.

5. The application of Order XVIII, rule 2, to Chartered High Courts is not excluded by Order XLIX, rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the scope of the right to open the plaintiffs case must be found from the terms of Order XVIII, rule 2, itself. Order XVIII, rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, lays down that, on the day fixed for the hearing of the suit, or any other day to which the hearing is adjourned, the party having the right to begin "shall state his case and produce his evidence" in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. The expression "state his case" cannot, in my opinion, mean, as a matter of plain language, anything more than giving a general outline of the plaintiffs case and perhaps indicating in a general manner the evidence by which that case is sought to be proved. The passage from Halsbury (3rd Edn., Vol. 3, para. 103, pp. 68-69), on which Mr. Shah has relied, far from supporting the contention of Mr. Shah, supports me in the conclusion at which I have arrived on a plain reading of Order XVIII, rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is stated in the, said passage in Halsbury that the object of an opening is to give to the Court a general notion of what will be given in evidence, and that counsel in opening states the facts of the case, the substance of the evidence he is to adduce and its effect on proving his case, and remarks upon any point of law involved in the case. Nothing that is stated by Halsbu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document