1. The sole question in this revision petition is whether a party can be equated with the witness and whether a document not being relied upon by any party can be produced at a later stage.

2. A suit has been filed by the respondent before the court below seeking possession of the house known as Durga Niwas situated at Amphalla, Jammu. The statement of the defendant was recorded by the trial court and while cross-examining the defendants a Will was confronted by the plaintiff to the defendant. The objection was raised by the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner that this document cannot be tendered in evidence, especially when no permission as warranted under Order 13 Rule 2 of CPC has been obtained by the plaintiff/respondent.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent contended that the production of such document is not barred under Order 7 sub Rule 18 of CPC. He states that Order 7 Rule 18 sub Rule 2 of CPC permits the plaintiff to introduce the documents for cross examination of defendant/witness.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Contention raised by the plaintiff is that no permission has been sought from the court under Order 13 Rule 2 of CPC to file the document. It is also contended that the Order 7 rule 18 of CPC permits production of documents in cross examination of defendants witness only. He also states that a party cannot be a witness, as according to him, the witness is not bound by the pleadings of the parties.

6. For facility of reference Order 7 Rule 18 of CPC is quoted here in below:

"Inadmissibility of document not produced when plaint filed.

1) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint, and which is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

2) Nothing in this rule applies to documents produced for cross examination of the defendants witnesses, or in answer to any case set up by the defendant or handed to a witness merely to refresh his memory."

7. The case of the plaintiff/respondent is that he wants to confront the defendant in cross examination regarding the document i.e. Will.

8. It is further stated that the plaintiff does not rely on the said (sic) pleadings, but only wants to confront the defendant in cross examination to refresh his memory. While analyzing the import of Order 7 Rule 18 of CPC, it is necessary that permission of the court to produce the document is sought only when the party relies on the said document, which was under his possession at that time. In the present circumstances, it is evident that the plaintiff/respondent does not rely on such documents in his pleadings.

9. In my opinion there is no requirement to seek permission of the court once the party does not rely on that document. In other words, the prohibition as imposed by Order 13 Rule 2 of CPC could be applicable only to those documents which are required to be filed by the plaintiff under sub Rule 1 of Rule 14 Order 7 CPC. The documents which may be produced by the plaintiff for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of any witness including the opposite party or for the purpose of answering to any case set up by the defendant or the documents which in tended to be used only for refreshing the memory of the witnesses, do not appear to be covered by Order 7 of Rule 14 of CPC. From the aforementioned discussion, there is no hesitation in holding that no permission is required when a document which is not basis of the claim and is not relied upon the plaintiff as evidence to support his claim, to be filed in original in the Court under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC. The provisions of Order 13 Rule 2 would not apply in such cases. Explanation to Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC provides that:

"no documentary evidence in the possession of power of any party

Click Here to Read the rest of this document