1972 (8) TMI 142 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of documents (vouchers) as evidence.
2. Right to cross-examine witnesses regarding the contents and genuineness of the documents.
3. Application for photographic examination of documents by a handwriting expert.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Documents as Evidence:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs. 13,489.82, alleging dealings with defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. The plaintiff produced 10 vouchers as evidence, which were not initially exhibited. During the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness, Kaluram, the trial judge pointed out that the documents were not exhibited, leading the counsel for defendant No.1 to state he had no objection to exhibiting the vouchers. The judge then allowed further cross-examination. However, the trial judge later treated this statement as an admission of the documents and their contents, which became a point of contention.

2. Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses:
Defendant No.1's counsel sought to challenge the contents and genuineness of the vouchers during cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, including Ratanlal (defendant No.2). The trial judge restricted this cross-examination, leading to the filing of an application (Exh. 57) to allow further cross-examination, which was rejected on the grounds that the documents were already admitted. The High Court found that this restriction on cross-examination constituted a material irregularity and affected the defendant's right to challenge the evidence.

3. Application for Photographic Examination:
Defendant No.1 also filed an application (Exh. 55) seeking permission to take photographs of the vouchers for examination by a handwriting expert, arguing that some entries appeared to be inserted later. This application was similarly rejected by the trial judge. The High Court noted that the rejection of this application without proper consideration was a procedural irregularity that affected the defendant's ability to contest the evidence.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The plaintiff's counsel argued that the High Court should not exercise its powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, citing Supreme Court decisions that limit such jurisdiction. However, the High Court clarified that Section 115 allows supervisory power over subordinate courts when there is an error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in procedure. The High Court determined that the trial judge's actions fell within these parameters, justifying its intervention.

Conclusion:
The High Court found that the trial judge's orders denying further cross-examination and photographic examination of the vouchers were based on an incorrect assumption that the documents and their contents were admitted by defendant No.1. This constituted a material irregularity and an error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court set aside the orders and directed the trial court to allow defendant No.1 to file detailed applications specifying the points for cross-examination and the need for expert examination. The trial court was instructed to reassess these applications and proceed accordingly, ensuring fairness and justice in the trial process. The revision application was allowed, with costs awarded to the plaintiff for the adjournments caused by these procedural issues.