Point of Law – Civil Suit – Delay of 20 months in cross examination of Defendants - recalling its witness - Court should permit only those documents with which witness is concerned; and it relates to the "relevant facts" and "facts in issue

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard, finally with consent of parties.

3. Petitioner instituted L.E. Suit No. 63/81 of 2012 against the Respondents - Defendants for eviction on the ground that the Defendants were gratuitous licensees. Defendants denied the suit claim and would assert their title in the suit property. Plaintiffs’ evidence was closed, on 13th March, 2018. While Defendants’ witness was under cross-examination, Plaintiff had filed an application under Order-18, Rule-17 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for filing additional documents and recalling his witness. Vide this application, Petitioner sought to place on record seventeen documents. Application was rejected, on 12th July, 2018. Order was confirmed in revision by the Appellate Bench, Small Causes of Bandra, Mumbai.

4. Facts emerging from Proceedings : It may be stated that Defendants’ witness is under cross-examination for more than 20 months. For the reasons stated, the learned trial Court had passed ‘no cross order’ on 23rd October, 2019. However, this order was set aside on 16th November, 2019, subject to condition that Advocate for the Plaintiff would cross-examine the Defendants’ witness no.1, without causing further delay and shall seek no adjournment on petty grounds. Be that as it may, on 16th November, 2019, while Defendants’ witness no.1 was under cross-examination, witness was confronted by showing a document, after inviting his attention to paragraph no.10 of examination-in-chief. The trial Court did not allow Plaintiff to confront the witness with a document, since it was not produced with the pleadings, at the appropriate stage. However, the learned trial Court permitted the Advocate, to cross-examine the witness, relating to paragraph no.10 of the examination-in-chief. Plaintiffs’ advocate, thus declined to hold further cross-examination of the witness. Whereafter the Court has passed the following order:

“At this juncture, advocate for the plaintiff has wind up his file and not put any further question to the witness and further stated that he want to challenge the above order in revision. However, I would like to invite his attention towards the order passed below Exh. 68 today itself wherein third time the no cross order was set aside with direction to the plaintiff not to seek adjournment on petty grounds. Whereas, the above scenario speaks the volume that plaintiff’s advocate has created an artificial ground to adjourn the matter anyhow. As he is not going to further cross examine to the D.W. No.1, hence in the light of order below Exh. 68 the further cross-examination of the witness is hereby closed.

Matter is adjourned for defendant’s next witness, if any on next date.”

5. Aggrieved, by the order as reproduced above, revision was preferred before the Bench at Small Causes Court. It was dismissed on 13th January, 2020. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the trial Court and the Revisional Court. Thus, petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Heard. Learned Counsel for the parties. Question arising for consideration; are

a. Whether scheme of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) interdicts, the parties to the suit from confronting the witness of adverse party with a document, not on the Courts’ record, but shown or produced to the witness for the first time in his cross-examination ?

b. The next question is: the party, which has otherwise failed to file documents at appropriate stage could be permitted to bring on record the document through evidence of the witness of adversary by putting or confronting him with such document?

7. The main object of the cross-examination is to bring out the falsity and to find out the truth and further to weaken qualify or destroy the case of Opponent and to establish the own case through Opponents’ witness. Thus objects are to impeach the accuracy, credibility and general value of the evidence given in-chief, to sift the facts already