w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Jetha Ram v/s Shaker Lal & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- C. LAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2012PLC046499

    Civil Revision Petition No. 509 of 1999

    Decided On, 19 May 1999

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KU. SINGH

    For the Appellant: Sajjan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: ----------



Judgment Text

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7-5-1999 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Pali in civil original suit No. 103/93.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge allowed the plaintiff to produce a receipt book for the purpose of cross-examination during the examination of Jetha Ram DW-1.

4. A perusal of the order dated 7-5-1999 shows that during the examination of Jetha Ram DW-1 (defendant), the plaintiff produced the receipt book for the purpose of cross-examination of Jetha Ram. An objection was raised on behalf of the defendant-petitioner that the plaintiff did not produce the receipt-book earlier in spite of the same being in his possession and, therefore, the plaintiff should not be permitted to produce the receipt book in Court for the purpose of cross-examination of the defendant Jetha Ram. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant) was based on the provisions contained in Order 7, Rule 18, C. P. C. Order 7, Rule 14 was also referred to the learned Civil Judge who after hearing the parties overruled the objections raised by the petitioner (defendant) in view of the provisions contained in Order 7, Rule 18(2), C.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 7-5-1999, the petitioner approached this Court u/s 115, C.P.C. by filing the revision petition.

5. So far as the production of documentary evidence is concerned, Order 7, Rule 14, C.P.C. provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 14 of Order 7, C.P.C. provides that here he relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint. A bare reading of Rule 14 of Order 7, C.P.C. shows that Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of Order 7, C.P.C. does not apply to those documents which are not in possession or power of the plaintiff or the documents which are not the basis of the suit. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, C.P.C. deals with any other documents whether in possession and power or not, on which the plaintiff realise as evidence in support of his claim. This sub-rule does not cover those documents which are not relied upon by the plaintiff for the purpose of supporting his claim. Rule 18 of Order 7, C.P.C. reads :--

"18. 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 of 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 defendant's witnesses, or in answer to any case set up by the defendant or handed to a witness merely to refresh his memory."

6. The provisions of Rule 18 of Order 7, C.P.C. necessarily referred to the documents mentioned in Rule 14 of Order 7, C. P.C. The prohibition imposed by Rule 18 on the production of the documents is, therefore, applicable to only those documents which are required to be filed by the plaintiff under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of Order 7, C. P. C. or the list whereof is required to be filed under Rule 14(2) of Order 7, C.P.C. by the plaintiff. 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 intended to be used only for refreshing the memory of the witnesses do not appear to be covered by Rule 14 of Order 7, C. P. C. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that a document which is not the basis of the claim as well as the document which is not relied upon by the plaintiff as evidence to support his claim, need not be filed in original in the Court under Order 7, Rule 14, C. P.C. nor it need be included in the list of documents to be submitted under Rule 14(2) of Order 7, C. P. C. The position is made further clear by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of Order 7, C.P.C. which expressly provides that nothing contained in Rule 18 of Rule 7, C.P.C. would apply to the documents produced for cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses, or in answer to any case set up by the defendant or handed to a witness merely to refresh his memory. The reason why legislature has made a distinction between the documents which are the basis of a claim made by the plaintiff as well as the documents on which reliance has been placed as evidence of the claim and other documents, is not difficult to infer. The documents which are neither the basis of the claim nor relied upon by the plaintiff for supporting his claim are not relevant for the purpose of establishing the case set up by the plaintiff and the policy of law is that irrelevant document should not be placed on the record of the case. Rule 14 of Order 7, C.P.C. is, therefore, restricted in the application to those documents which are either the basis of the claim or which are relied upon by the plaintiff for supporting his claim. So far as the application of Order 7, Rules 14 and 18, C.P.C. is concerned, the learned Civil Judge does not appear to have committed any irregularity by holding that a document which is produced by the plaintiff only for the purpose of cross-examination is not covered by the prohibition contained in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of Order 7, C.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Kanaram v. State of Rajasthan (1990) 1 RLW 179, for the purpose of supporting his submission that even if a document is required only for the purpose of cross-examination, such document will have to be filed under Order 7, Rule 14, C.P.C. at the time of filing of the plaint. I have carefully gone through the order passed by the learned single Judge in Kanaram's case. In that case a revision petition was filed before this Court against the order dated 4-1-990 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Merta by which he rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner for recalling the plaintiff Pukhraj to confront him with earlier statement dated 21-6-1980 given in another suit. The revision petitioner (defendant) contended before the learned single Judge that the learned trial Court acted with material irregularity in rejecting the application filed for recalling the plaintiff, as the plaintiff-non-petitioner Pukhraj has admitted in his earlier statement dated 21-6-1980 given in another suit that the defendant Kanaram was a tenant and not a sub-tenant. It was further contended by the petitioner before the learned single Judge that in view of the observations made in Suresh Kumar v. Baldev Raj AIR 1984 Delhi 438 (439), it was expected that the learned Civil Judge should recall the plaintiff to confront with his earlier statement dated 21-6-1980. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that the defendant-petitioner had moved a similar application and the same was dismissed by the trial Court by its order dated 1-4-1989. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that there was no good ground for recalling the plaintiff for confronting with his previous statement dated 21 -6-1980. It was in the context of these facts and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties that the learned single Judge pointed that it has been held in Bharat Singh and Another Vs. Bhagirathi, that the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act are not applicable to the parties and they are applicable to the witnesses only.

7. In the instant case, the crucial question arising before the trial Court was not whether the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act were or were not applicable to the cross-examination of the defendant. The only question which was posed before the trial Court was whether the plaintiff could produce the receipts for the purpose of cross-examining the defendant when he was under cross-examination. So far as the right of the plaintiff to make use of a document only for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of a party or a witness, is concerned, such right does not appear to have been taken away by Order 7. Rule 14 or 18, C.P.C. The reason is simple. Unless a witness appears in the witness-box and make a statement on oath, the question of impeaching his testimony would not arise nor it would be possible for the party entitled to cross-examine him to anticipate on what points or by the use of which document it would be proper to question the evidence of the witness. Common experience shows that it is after the appearance of the witness in the witness-box and the recording of the examt-nation-in-chief that it may be known on

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

what points he has been given evidence u/s 60 of the Evidence Act and whether his evidence can be challenged by way of cross-examination. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not fine any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge. As such this revision petition has no force. It deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. But, it may be pointed out that if the receipt-books are intended to be used only for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of the defendant No. 1, they would be permitted to be produced in the Court. On the other hand, if in the garb of exercising the right conferred by Section 145 of the Evidence Act read with Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of Order 7, C. P. C., the plaintiff is found to be abusing the provisions contained in Order 7, Rule 14, C. P. C. or Order 13, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C., then no permission shall be deemed to have given to him to produce the receipt-books for the purpose of supporting his claim. Final Result : Dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

09-09-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others Versus Goverdhan Lal Soni & Another Supreme Court of India
08-09-2020 Murari Lal Versus State of U.P & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-08-2020 Chhotey Lal Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-08-2020 Lal Chand Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
11-08-2020 Shankar Lal Yadav & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
17-07-2020 Pyare Lal Versus State of Haryana Supreme Court of India
29-06-2020 Mohan Lal Jain Versus Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Another High Court of Delhi
26-06-2020 Amrut Lal @ Amrit Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
23-06-2020 Munna Lal Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical & Health Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Jivan Lal Verma Versus Kishan Agrotek National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Moti Lal @ Moti Lal Patwa Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance through the Director, Enforcement Directorate, Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-06-2020 Latelraj Suryawanshi (Latelram Suryawanshi wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment) Versus Hori Lal Tamboli & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-05-2020 Aravapalli Krishna Murthy Versus Syed Lal Saheb Died & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 Diwari Lal & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
11-05-2020 Shiv Lal (Since Deceased) Versus Mohan Lal High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-05-2020 Mohan Lal Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
30-04-2020 Jagdish Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-04-2020 Babu Lal Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
24-03-2020 Babu Lal & Others Versus Para Devi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal Supreme Court of India
11-03-2020 Ram Dulari & Another Versus Ram Lal & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
29-02-2020 Lal Chand Versus State of H.P. High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-02-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-02-2020 Aman Khattar Versus Jawahar Lal High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 M/s. Kiran Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Manohar Lal Ahuja, Uttar Pradesh Versus Yashpal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-02-2020 M/s. Behari Lal & sons V/S The State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
18-02-2020 M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions (P) Ltd. Dwaraka, New Delhi, Registered Office Bhatinda, Punjab, Represented by Its Director, Vikas Mehta Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Dr. Hira Lal Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Manager, Delhi Versus Chaman Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Jhanak Lal V/S State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Chattisgarh
13-02-2020 Vikas Panchayat, Gram Boheda Through Sarpanch, Rajasthan Versus Badri Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Ashok Alias Gore Lal Veruss State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Kanhaiya Lal Versus Lala Ram & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Heera Lal Versus State High Court of Rajasthan
05-02-2020 Chhotey Lal @ Chottu Versus State High Court of Delhi
31-01-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
29-01-2020 Karnveer Singh Versus Panji Lal Damor High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-01-2020 Mohit Lal Ghosh Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-01-2020 M/s. Urban Umbrella Development And Management Company Through Its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Punjab V/S Pawan Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-01-2020 Chuni Lal Versus Munshi Ram & Another Supreme Court of India
24-01-2020 Lal Mohammed Versus State (Nct of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India
22-01-2020 Seema Lal & Others V/S State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
21-01-2020 Kishan Lal Chadha @ Krishan Lal Chadha (Deceased) Versus Anup Chadha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Orissa Versus Achhey Lal High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-01-2020 Rattan Lal Bharadwaj Versus Magma Financial Corporation Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-01-2020 Shyam Lal Jayaswal Versus Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
06-01-2020 Udhav Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station Sarangarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-01-2020 State Bank of India V/S Nand Lal Sokhal and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Jaipur
02-01-2020 Manori Lal & Another Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-12-2019 Manik Lal Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-12-2019 State of Punjab Versus Kashmiri Lal @ Sheera High Court of Punjab and Haryana
29-11-2019 Chumman Lal Sahu & Another Versus Gopal Ji Singh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-11-2019 Sham Lal Chabba Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-11-2019 Chaitu Lal Versus State of Uttarakhand Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 The Management of M/s. Birla Te Versus Chunni Lal High Court of Delhi
15-11-2019 Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) Versus Abhilash Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
13-11-2019 Montu Lal Das Gupta V/S The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, to the Government of India, Ministry of Health, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
11-11-2019 The State of Maharashtra Versus Mohammed Ibrahim Lal Mohammed & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-11-2019 Parvati Mohta Through Legal Representatives Versus Mohan Lal Sukhadia University High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
08-11-2019 Avijit Mitra & Others Versus Shankar Lal Roy High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-11-2019 Heera Lal Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
04-11-2019 Shyambai Versus Shankar Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-10-2019 Joint Labour Commissioner & Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-10-2019 Indore Development Authority Versus Manohar Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
22-10-2019 Pratap Lal Teli Versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Public Prosecutor, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-10-2019 Hori Lal & Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-10-2019 Gopi Lal Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-10-2019 Jawahar Lal Jaiswal Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
09-10-2019 Roshan Lal Versus Delhi Jal Board High Court of Delhi
04-10-2019 Ravi Setia Versus Madan Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
26-09-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption U.P State Cons. & Infra. Versus M/s. Reham Foundation Kandhari Lane Lal Bagh, Lucknow High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
25-09-2019 Rakesh Goel Versus Hira Lal ( Now Deceased) & Another High Court of Delhi
24-09-2019 Sri Ananta Prasad Sahu @ Sri Ananta Lal Sahu Versus Sri Gopal Sahu @ Sri Golao Lal Sahu High Court of Gauhati
18-09-2019 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rameshwar Lal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-09-2019 Anshuman Dubey & Another Versus Jawahar Lal Nehru University & Others High Court of Delhi
16-09-2019 Vinod Madan Lal Nawandhar Versus Vidisha Garg & Others High Court of Delhi
11-09-2019 Ami Lal Versus Commandant, 52nd Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Manipur & Another High Court of Orissa
09-09-2019 Malkit Kaur Versus Joginder Lal Khurana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-09-2019 Chaman Lal Mittal Versus Kamini Sharma High Court of Delhi
05-09-2019 Laxman Lal Latta Versus Kamlesh Parmar & Others High Court of Rajasthan
03-09-2019 Pritam Lal Makhija Versus Akhil Bhartiya Aggarwal Sammelan Thr its Joint Organised Secretary Virender Gupta High Court of Delhi
02-09-2019 Shiv Lal Versus Om Parkash Kashyap High Court of Delhi
02-09-2019 Bharat Lal Meena Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
22-08-2019 Dilip Kumar Mahesh Versus Sundar Lal Maurya High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
21-08-2019 Sunder Lal Versus State High Court of Delhi
20-08-2019 Mewa Lal Choudhary Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-08-2019 Dhanpat Lal Sharma Versus Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
08-08-2019 Hazari Lal Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services, Sirsa & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-08-2019 Nand Lal & Others Versus Bhakra Beas Management Board & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
05-08-2019 Panna Lal Gaur & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-08-2019 Moti Lal Daga & Another Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
01-08-2019 Basant Lal Memorial College of Education Versus National Council For Teacher Education & Others High Court of Delhi
29-07-2019 Rajasthan Housing Board Versus Roshan Lal Saini & Others Supreme Court of India
24-07-2019 Bhajan Lal & Others Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
23-07-2019 Surinder Pal Soni V/S Sohan Lal (D) thru L.R. and Others. Supreme Court of India
23-07-2019 Surinder Pal Soni Versus Sohan Lal (D) Thru Lr & Others Supreme Court of India