9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (8) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me 10 vouchers. It appears that these documents were produced on 16-2-1972 and thereafter the case was fixed sometimes in July for evidence. One Kaluram was produced by plaintiff as witness No.1. 3. It is not in dispute before me and I take it from the learned counsel appearing for both the parties that while this Kaluram was being cross-examined, the counsel appearing for defendant NO.1 the present applicant wanted to ask certain questions relating to these vouchers. At that stage, the learned Judge pointed out to the counsel that the documents were not exhibited and, therefore, he should not ask questions. Upon this it appears that the learned counsel stated on the list of documents that he had no objection for exhibiting these vouchers. Further cross-examination was thereafter allowed by the learned Judge. One Ratanlal was called by the plaintiff as its witness No. 2 the said witness was cross-examined and some questions were put upon these documents also. However, a complaint is being made that defendant No.1 wanted to challenge the contents of the exhibits i.e. these 10 vouchers being Exhs. Nos. 30 to 39 and wanted to put questions in cross-examination for that purpose. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) of that section. Clauses (a) and (b) do not furnish any difficulty as they are clear in terms. Neatly stated they can be invoked where a case of want of jurisdiction or non-exercise of jurisdiction is made out. Clause (c) of S. 115, however, since its inception, has proved a cockpit of judicial debate, both as to its efficacy as well as its sweep via the power conferred by this section upon the High Court. As pointed out in the case cited by the learned advocate for application of all these Clauses (a), (b) and (c), however, there must be initially a case decided. The term has now been interpreted by the Supreme Court in that decision and would take in a decision in a pending proceeding which concludes a right of a party before the Court. 7. The provision of Clause (c) of Section 115, if closely scrutinized, would show that it operates upon the action with jurisdiction when such an action is either illegal or is fraught with material irregularity. In Clause Jagdisprasad v. Gangaprasad, the Supreme Court observed that if any erroneous decision of a subordinate Court resulted in its exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failing to exercise a jurisdiction so veste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings pending in the Lower Court a matter has been concluded with material irregularity or involving illegality. I am of the view that the proceedings can be properly brought before this Court under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even on the authorities cited by the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant No.1 in the matter is still open to be examined. I can not hence accede that the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in the present controversy. 11. It is, therefore, necessary to find out what the impugned orders produced at Exhs. 57 and 55 have done in the instant case. It is no more in dispute that the plaintiff if seeking to enforce an obligation against the present applicant-defendant No.1 and to support the liability raised by the plea, he filed certain vouchers. It appears that these vouchers were filed with a list of documents and were not exhibited when the principal witness on behalf of the plaintiff P. W. 1. Kaluram entered the witness-box. No notice as required by the Code of Civil Procedure to admit the documents appears to have been given to the defendant No.1 or defendant No.2. What is now admitted before me is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... columns in those vouchers appear clearly to have been inserted or filled in later on. That application was similarly rejected by the learned Judge on the same day .i.e. 7-7-1972. That order is also challenged before me. 13. Now, there appears to be some confusion with respect to the right of the party to challenge the documentary evidence. It must be stated that a party defending has a right to put every piece of evidence before the Court which would include the circumstances that may ultimately affect the appreciation of evidence in the trial. The purpose of cross-examination is to place all the factors before the Court so as to enable it to come to a just decision on the competing cases and to enable the party to take out material which will help or otherwise show the probability in laying down its defence. This valuable right is a statutory one and is also the part of the basic principles of justice and fairness. I just inroad on this right would not only affect the merits of the case but also disable a party in its own defence. If, therefore, in a given case it is shown that this salutary right has been made illusory by either a misconception of facts or law, it would not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formed, for an admission must be clear and categorical. On the other hand, here what one finds is that the learned counsel merely said that he has no objection to exhibit the documents while he was asking questions to the first witness produced by the plaintiff. If that be so, it is neither an admission as to documents nor can be treated as an admission of the contents thereof. The error thus committed while passing the orders both at Exhs, 55 and 57 is apparent which has consequently vitiated the further rejection of the prayers by the trial Court. Both these orders therefore, are liable to be set aside and are set aside. 17. This, however, cannot conclude the matter. As is apparent, the applications were lacking in the material details. It is, therefore, necessary to allow the defendant No.1, the applicant before me to file proper applications with respect to the matters giving the points on which he wishes to cross-examine the witnesses produced for the plaintiff. Similarly, the application should be detailed enough as to what particular portions of these documents require the examination through an Handwriting Expert and the purpose for photographic inspection through an Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
