Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18373
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J
J. Omprakash – Appellant
Versus
K. Indravati – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1916 of 2021|O.S.No.298 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.Nalin Kumar
For the Respondents: R.A.Achuthanand, Venkatram Reddy Mantur, Veduala Srinivas, Ms.Vedula Chitralekha
Confusing the legality of documents, the High Court can interfere under Article 227 when the trial court erroneously permits confrontation of a document by a counsel for a party to witness that witness soul is not a party to the document, if the sole purpose is to bring the document on record and not for contradiction or refreshing memory.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 120, 137, 145 and 155 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 13, Rule 2 - Confrontation of documents to witness - Permissible only for contradiction or refreshing memory - A document can be confronted only if it is already on record or when witness is party to the document - General power of superintendence of High Court under Article 227 - Interference only for jurisdictional error, perversity or abuse of process - Trial Court failed to follow these principles.
(B) Article 227 - Scope - Superintendence not confined to administrative exercise but includes judicial review - Interference only when inferior Court has acted beyond jurisdiction or committed a patent error of law.
(C) The principle: A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements in writing (Section 145), but confrontation of a document executed by someone else without prior production is impermissible. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The revision petitioner, defendant No.2 in the suit, challenges an docket order permitting the plaintiff and defendant No.4 to confront Release and Relinquishment deeds to P.W.1 during cross-examination. The documents were neither on record nor was the witness a party to them. The court framed issues regarding the admissibility of such documents.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the confrontation was aimed merely at eliciting admission of the document, not for contradiction or refreshing memory. The decision to allow confrontation was an error of law requiring interference. The court directed the trial court to de-exhibit the document, but permitted the parties to resort to the proper procedure for admission.
Issues: Could the document be confronted without prior filing and whether the trial court committed an error in allowing such confrontation?
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that documents can be confronted only when witness is a party to the document or otherwise admissible for cross-examination, police statement, or refreshing memory under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Result : This revision petition is allowed, setting aside the docket order dated 22.11.2021, with liberty to the parties to take appropriate steps to get the documents admitted as per law. No costs.
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.298 of 2015.
Heard Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2; Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur, learned counsel for the respondent No.3; Sri Veduala Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 . Perused the entire material on record.
For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
The brief facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner is defendant No.2 in O.S.No.298 of 2015 on the file of the X Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff against the revision petitioner and other family members seeking partition of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit evidence was closed and the matter was heard and posted for judgment to 24.06.2019, since the Presiding Officer was transferred the suit was reopened. In the meanwhile the father of the revision petitioner, plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 6, who was defendant No.1 in the above suit expired. Thereafter the plaintiff and defendant No.4 sought amendment on the premise that their father executed certain documents in their favour and after amendments petition was allowed and after additional pleadings by the parties to the suit.
Additional issues were framed and thereafter the respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit filed Addl. Chief Affidavit and the matter came up for cross examination, since it is the specific plea of the petitioner herein (Defendant No.2) in the suit that plaintiff and defendant No.4 are sailing together, the trial court was pleased to direct defendant No.4 to cross examine PW.1. While so, during cross-examination of PW.1 by counsel for defendant No.4, on 27-12-2021. The counsel for defendant No.4 sought to confront Release Deed purported to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 and a paper publication allegedly given by defendant No.1 and the same was objected to by petitioners counsel as they are irrelevant documents and cannot be marked and requested the court to decide on the admissibility of document.
Therefore trial court heard both the counsels and passed docket orders dated 22.11.2021. Admittedly, plaintiff herein has entered into the witness box and was examined as PW-1. And the docket order dated 22.11.2021 which is passed by the learned trial court order dated, which is extracted below:
“17.11.2021: PW1, the counsel for D2 appeared, D2 appeared, D3 and D4 also appeared. For consideration of the admisibility of the documents sought to be confronted to PW1 by defendant No.4 call on 22-11-2021.
22.11.2021: PW1, Defendant No.2, Defendant No.3 and Defendant No.4 appeared. The documents i.e., Release Deed and Relinquishment Deed executed by the defendant No.1 are permitted to be confronted to PW1 but publication given in news paper is refused to be confronted to PW1. For cross examination of PW1 by defendant No.4 at request call on 08.12.2021.”
Being aggrieved by the impugned docket orders dated 17.11.2021 and 22.11.2021, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed on the ground that permitting the Release Deed and Relinquishment Deed executed by Defendant No.1 to be confronted to PW.1 is contrary to law. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that PW.1 is not a party to the said documents and, therefore, the same cannot be confronted to the witness. The learned trial Court also failed to appreciate the settled position of law that a document can be confronted to a witness during cross-examination only to (i) contradict him or (ii) refresh the memory of the witness. Lastly, the learned trial Court failed to assign any reasons for permitting t
