Judgement Key Points

S.N. BHARGAVA, J,—This is plaintiffs revision petition against the order of learned Additional District Judge No, 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissing application of the petitioners for putting certain questions by way of pigeon hole-

2.The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance against the respond-ents, for an agreement executed by them on 6.12,1970. The plaintiffs closed their evidence and the defendants evidence was in progress. One of the defendant-respondents witness, Ghanshyam was being examined and cross-examination was in progress. He denied the signatures of Mohan Lal on the agreement (Ex. 9). Thereafter, the petitioners submitted an application in writing that they may be allowed to cross-examine the witness by way of pigeon hole i.e. by show-ing only the signatures of Mohan Lal on some other documents without telling the contents thereof. But the trial court did not allow such type of cross-exami-nation. The trial court, not only dismissed the application filed by the petitioners but closed further cross-examination by the petitioners. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to B. Maliks Cross Examination, Second Edn. 1979 which shows that a counsel is permitted to cross-examine the witness as to the contents of letter without showing it to him.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non petitioners has very vehemently submitted that no revision petition lies against the impugned order and this Court cannot interfere in revision against such an order. He has placed reliance on Bisheshwar Singh V. A.G. Bihar (1) in which the High Court did not interfere in the order dis-allowing interrogation intended for disposal of interim injunction as it did not amount to case decided. Learned counsel for the non petitioners also drew my attention to Maheshwari Oil Mills vs. Girija Nath Durga Saran (2) wherein also a similar view has been taken and it has been held that the order refusing to grant leave to a party to interrogate, is not a case decided within the meaning of sec. 115 C.P.C. He has also referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Smt. Kali Baba Akhuli Vs. Shambhu Akhuli(3).

5. I have gone through the order of the trial court as well as the authorities cited at the bar. The two decisions of the High Courts Patna and Allahabad, High Court related only to disallowing of interrogation whereas full text of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court is not available and it has appeared only in Short Notes, therefore, it does not throw any light as to under what circumstances the Calcutta High Court refused to interfere in revision, with an order of the trial court disallowing certain questions to a witness, it is true the scope of revision u/s 115 C.P.C. is very limited and restricted but ail the same, the courts are meant to do justice in accordance with law, not only technical justice but substantial justice. Justice need not only be done but it should appear to have been done Disallowing the question may not amount to case decided, but all the same, putting questions like the one as the petitioners wanted to do, in the present case, i.e. cross-examine the witness by method of pigeon hole, was to test the truthfulness and correctness of the statement of the witness who had asserted in the cross-examination that the signatures on the questioned agreement were not that of Mohan Lal. The method of showing the signatures of Mohanlal on admitted documents is not only effective but the only method of testing the verasity of the witness whether he is speaking truth or not and a party is fully entitled to put such type of questions when a witness comes and gives statement like a handwriting expert, denying the signatures. Non-allowing such questions to be put to the witness will amount to refusing to allow the cross-examination which will amount to great injustice. Cross-examination is the only weapon with the ad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document