CIVIL APPEAL 5503 of 2010 on 28 October 2010

ORDER:

This revision is arising out of order, dated 28.10.2010 passed in I.A.No.520 of 2010 in O.S.No.257 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.257 of 2008. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.520 of 2010 under Order VII Rule 14(3) and Section 151 CPC for receiving of two documents, containing the signatures of the respondent. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 28.10.2010. Aggrieved by that, the present revision is preferred by the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Perused the material on record.

4. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the petition filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) and Section 151 CPC for receiving two documents kept in sealed cover, can be received in the evidence of witnesses?

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plaintiff has filed documents during cross examination to confront a document, the signature portion without disclosing the other contents and the nature of document, for the purpose of the identification of signature. The trial Court did not permit it and hence the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if the nature of document is disclosed to witness he would be alerted and may deny the signature.

7. In fact, the above petition was filed to receive Xerox copy of a document under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC. The said provision reads as under :

"Order 7- Plaint Rule 14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.-

(1).. (2)...

(3) 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 but 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."

8. The above provision is to enable the plaintiff to file documents which he ought to have produced in Court, or entered in the list annexed to plaint, may file the same with the leave of the Court.

9. The respondent has filed his counter in the Interlocutory Application mainly stating that the method adopted by the petitioner by showing the closed cover alleging that the signatures on them belong to the defendant, and sought to be marked in evidence in not the proper procedure.

10. It is further stated that, the petitioner has sought for receiving the documents at the fag end of the trial, by confronting the same to DW.1 in his cross examination, without disclosing the nature of document. It is impermissible under law. It is further contended that the petitioner has not given any explanation for delay in filing the sealed covers during the cross examination of DW.1.

11. There is some force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent. In the case of G. Sanjeeva Reddy And Ors. vs Indukuru Lakshmamma And Ors.[1], it was held that “Documents on which the plaintiff seeks to rely must be filed along with the plaint. The purpose of filing the documents along with the plaint was for the defendants to know its contents and proceed with the further examination of the witnesses. The lack of knowledge of the documents by the defendant would disentitled him to prepare for the cross examination of the witnesses. No doubt, the reasonable cause must be shown if the documents are brought on record subsequent to the filing of the plaint. Only with the leave of the court the documents can be received by the court. The court by using the discretion basing on the legal principles may permit the documents to be received subsequent to the filing of the plaint. The plaintiff must show the reasonable cause for non-filing of those documents along with the plaint.

12. In light of the above legal preposition, it is obvious that the plaintiff has to show a reasonable cause for filing the documents subsequently. In the instant case, the expert was summoned and examined on behalf of the defendant, and he was also cross examined at length on behalf of the plaintiff. The suit was coming up for arguments, and at that stage, the plaintiff came up with two sealed covers, and tried to introduce them in the evidence.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the contents of the documents cannot be disclosed to the witnesses and if they are disclosed to the witness, he would be alerted and may deny his signature on the documents. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court can receive the sealed covers without disclosing the contents of the documents to the defendant.

14. As a matter of fact, an opportunity to the defendants to prepare for their defence for cross examination is to be given by disclosing the nature of documents in an adversarial litigation. The defendant must know the case of the plaintiff. That is why as per Order VII Rule 14, the procedure is prescribed for filing of documents by the plaintiff into the Court. The purpose of the said provision is to enable the defendant to prepare for his defence. There are no secrets in the way of conducting trial. It is an open trial. In an adversarial litigation both the parties must know each other’s case. There cannot be surprises or secrets during trial in adducing the evidence. The entire examination of the witness is based on the pleadings, documents filed before the Court. Showing a document, only to the extent of the signature portion is not in accordance with the established procedure under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Section 145 of the Evidence Act deals with the cross examination in respect of the previous statements in writing. It reads as under:

“145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.—A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.”

15. It is also pertinent to note that the party would state in the affidavit on oath that the contents of the documents are true to the best of their knowledge. In this connection, the mere showing the signature on the document without disclosing its contents and the nature of document appears to be not a fair trial.

16. Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC reads as under :

“(3) 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 but 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.”

17. In the light of the above provision, leave of the Court is to be obtained for filing the documents subsequent to the filing of the plaint. The documents kept in sealed cover which are not disclosed to the defendant cannot be received in the evidence for confronting those documents to the witness in his cross examination. The portion of the signature of a person on the document is shown to the witness without disclosing the nature of the document, and the contents therein are misleading the witness. It is impressible in law to confront only the signature of a person to the witness without disclosing the contents of the documents that too a Xerox copy of the document which did not contain original signature of the witness.

The provision under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked in this case as there are specific provisions under Order VII Rule 14(3) available in CPC for receiving documents.

18. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with orders of the trial Court.

19. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision shall stand closed.

_________________________

G. SHYAM PRASAD, J

DATED: 21-08-2019 gvl

gvl

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

C.R.P No.5503 of 2010

Dated : -08-2019