basavaraj shiromani
30 March 2012 at 18:29
As I have already discussed earlier, my friends are confused about my question. Therefore in order to clarify the matter, I again putforthing the facts.
In a partition suit defendant filed an unregistered partition deed which is not exhibited because his evidence is not yet started. Now the case is deferred for further cross examination of the plaintiff. Here in this case, defendant wants to confront his document under the cross examination of the plaintiff. That means, the defendant is compelling this plaintiff to read the contents of the document and to identify the signature. Whether is it permissible under law.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. {(2010) 8 SCC 24; Decided on 26.07.2010} held as follows in para 13.5 and 16 respectively:
13.5) A classic example of correcting an error committed by the draftsman in legislative drafting is the substitution of the words `defendant's witnesses' by this Court for the words `plaintiff's witnesses' occurring in Order VII Rule 14(4) of the Code, in Salem Bar-II {Salem Advocate Bar Assn. II Vs. UOI (2005 6 SCC 344)}. We extract below the relevant portion of the said decision :
"Order VII relates to the production of documents by the plaintiff whereas Order VIII relates to production of documents by the defendant. Under Order VIII Rule 1-A(4) a document not produced by defendant can be confronted to the plaintiff's witness during cross-examination. Similarly, the plaintiff can also confront the defendant's witness with a document during cross-examination. By mistake, instead of 'defendant's witnesses', the words 'plaintiff's witnesses' have been mentioned in Order VII Rule 14(4). To avoid any confusion, we direct that till the legislature corrects the mistake, the words 'plaintiff's witnesses, would be read as 'defendant's witnesses' in Order VII Rule 14(4). We, however, hope that the mistake would be expeditiously corrected by the legislature."
Order 7 rule 14 (4) of cpc
As I have already discussed earlier, my friends are confused about my question. Therefore in order to clarify the matter, I again putforthing the facts.
In a partition suit defendant filed an unregistered partition deed which is not exhibited because his evidence is not yet started. Now the case is deferred for further cross examination of the plaintiff. Here in this case, defendant wants to confront his document under the cross examination of the plaintiff. That means, the defendant is compelling this plaintiff to read the contents of the document and to identify the signature. Whether is it permissible under law.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. {(2010) 8 SCC 24; Decided on 26.07.2010} held as follows in para 13.5 and 16 respectively:
13.5) A classic example of correcting an error committed by the draftsman in legislative drafting is the substitution of the words `defendant's witnesses' by this Court for the words `plaintiff's witnesses' occurring in Order VII Rule 14(4) of the Code, in Salem Bar-II {Salem Advocate Bar Assn. II Vs. UOI (2005 6 SCC 344)}. We extract below the relevant portion of the said decision :
"Order VII relates to the production of documents by the plaintiff whereas Order VIII relates to production of documents by the defendant. Under Order VIII Rule 1-A(4) a document not produced by defendant can be confronted to the plaintiff's witness during cross-examination. Similarly, the plaintiff can also confront the defendant's witness with a document during cross-examination. By mistake, instead of 'defendant's witnesses', the words 'plaintiff's witnesses' have been mentioned in Order VII Rule 14(4). To avoid any confusion, we direct that till the legislature corrects the mistake, the words 'plaintiff's witnesses, would be read as 'defendant's witnesses' in Order VII Rule 14(4). We, however, hope that the mistake would be expeditiously corrected by the legislature."