The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the admissibility of document production during cross-examination.

1. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Panaji, pursuant to which she allowed the production of the document at the instance of the Defendant to confront the Plaintiff in the course of his cross examination by overruling the objections raised by the Plaintiff that such course of action was not permissible in law.

2. Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Advocate for the Petitioner who raised a poser whether the Defendant could be allowed to produce documents in the course of the cross examination of the Plaintiff. In that context, he referred to Order XIII Rule 1(3)(a) of the Civil Procedure Code which reads thus:

“1. Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues.-

...

(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents –

(a) produced for the cross examination of the witnesses of the other party;

Order XIII of the Civil Procedure Code mandates the parties or their pleader to produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with the plaint or written statement. He next referred to Order VII Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code which deals with the production of documents on which the Plaintiff sues or relies and to sub-rule (4) in particular reading that nothing in this rule shall apply to the document produced for cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s witness or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. He further adverted to Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC which casts a duty on the Defendant to produce document upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him and then to the application moved on behalf of the original Defendant and the reply filed by him opposing the application for leave to produce the document. It was his contention further that there was ample opportunity to the defendant to produce the document earlier and the same could not be produced to confront the plaintiff in the course of the cross-examination on a proper reading and construction of Order VII Rule 14, Order VIII Rule 1-A and Order XIII Rule 1(3) (a) of the Civil Procedure Code. He relied in Purshottam vs. Gajanan [2012 (6) MhLJ 648], Union of India & anr. vs. B. D. Sharma, [AIR 1989 NOC 183 (J & K)] and Laxmikant Sinai Lotlekar & anr. vs. Raghuvir Sinai Lotlekar [1984 Mh. L.J. 938], to substantiate his case and to press for a reversal of the impugned Order.

3. Shri D. J. Pangam, learned Advocate for the Respondents-Defendants, at the outset, raised a rhetoric that in case the plaintiff was not a witness as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner, the whole system of recording evidence would collapse. On his part, he invited attention to Order XIII Rule 1, 2 and 3(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure with emphasis on Rule 3(a) in particular which mandates a party to appear before the other witnesses and reading as “where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined unless the Court for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage.” It was thus his contention that there was no distinction between a party and a witness and that a party to the proceeding on examination was akin to a witness and therefore the objection raised on behalf of the Petitioner was without any basis. His next contention was that the Judgment in Purshottam vs, Gajanan (supra) holding that a party was not a witness by relying on the Judgment in Union of India & anr. vs. B. D. Sharma (supra) was per incuriam since it did not consider the provisions of Order XIII Rule 3(a) of the Civil Procedure Code. He next adverted to what is meant by “evidence” as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, meaning and including all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry. Therefore, it was hi