Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:-

1. This petition raises questions of general importance, arising frequently in trials. The questions can be framed thus:-

(i) What is the challenge/fate of the documents produced for the first time during the cross examination of a witness and which are denied by the witness? Whether the said documents are required to be retained/kept on the court file or merely because the witness has denied the document, the same has to be returned to the party which has produced the same?

(ii) If the said documents are to be kept on record/retained, what is the status thereof?

(iii) Whether a party producing the said document can prove the same at the stage of his own evidence or for the reason of having not produced it along with its plaint/written statement and having chosen to use it only during cross examination, is then barred from treating the document as own document and proving the same? Since I am unable to find any judgment completely considering the aspects and further since in my opinion these questions plague the courts on a daily basis, it is deemed appropriate to answer the same.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the defendant in the suit before the Trial Court and against the order dated 20th October, 2008 dismissing the application of the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.

3. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit from which this petition arises against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of money. It is inter alia the case of the respondent/plaintiff that he is the owner of certain land which had been acquired from the predecessor of the petitioner/defendant; that a notification for acquisition of the said land was issued; that he applied for compensation for such acquisition; however the petitioner/defendant filed objections against the release of compensation to the respondent/plaintiff and which objections were subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner/defendant; that owing to the objections having been filed, the release of compensation to the respondent/plaintiff was delayed. The respondent/plaintiff claims interest on the amount of compensation for the period of delay, so caused by the petitioner/defendant.

4. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit inter alia by controverting that the land had been transferred by his predecessor to the respondent/plaintiff/his predecessor; that the respondent/plaintiff had taken advantage of the illiteracy of the father of the petitioner/defendant and cheated him out of the land. The petitioner/defendant admitted having filed objections to the release of compensation to the respondent/plaintiff and also admitted having withdrawn the said objections. It is, however, his plea that the objections were withdrawn owing to compromise having been arrived at between the parties; however, the respondent/plaintiff again mischievously got the withdrawal application signed from him without disclosing that it had been falsely written therein that the petitioner/defendant had no documents of ownership of the land.

5. The petitioner/defendant during the cross examination of the respondent/plaintiff put to him a hand written document purporting to be a draft of the application for withdrawal of objections. It is inter alia the case of the petitioner/defendant that the said document is in the handwriting of the respondent/plaintiff and the withdrawal of objections was to be in terms of the said document. The respondent/plaintiff however when confronted with the said document denied the same to be in his handwriting and also denied the same to be the draft of the application for withdrawal to be filed and also denied any knowledge thereof. Ex.PW1/D1 was put on the said document and the same retained on file.

6. It is thereafter that the petitioner/defendant filed the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for comparison of handwriting on the said document with admitted handwriting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document