Whether a party can produce document in cross examination even if it was not produced along with written statement?
Order VII Rule 14, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order XIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Besides, if an interpretation as canvassed by Shri Pangam is accepted, the provisions of Order VII, Order VIII and Order XIII would be rendered nugatory and as observed in Laxmikant Sinai Lotlekar (supra). The learned Trial Court therefore was in jurisdictional error to disallow the objections raised by the petitioner-plaintiff contrary to the mandate of Order VIII Rule 1 and Order XIII Rule 1(3)(a) of the Civil Procedure Code. The Respondents had to follow the mandate as contained in Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and could not seek to produce such documents directly during the cross examination of the plaintiff which it had to otherwise rely upon in a list of documents as required by law. The learned Trial Court therefore committed a jurisdictional error and therefore the impugned Order calls for an interference.
In the result, the Petition is allowed and the impugned Order is quashed and set aside. It goes without saying that there is no need of any reference of the matter to the Chief Justice for referring to a larger Bench in view of the decision in Purshottam (supra) and Laxmikant Sinai Lotlekar (supra). There shall be no order as to costs.
In the result, the Petition is allowed and the impugned Order is quashed and set aside. It goes without saying that there is no need of any reference of the matter to the Chief Justice for referring to a larger Bench in view of the decision in Purshottam (supra) and Laxmikant Sinai Lotlekar (supra). There shall be no order as to costs.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Writ Petition No. 1014 of 2016
Decided On: 15.09.2017
Vinayak M. Dessai Vs. Ulhas N. Naik and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Nutan D. Sardessai, J.
Citation: 2018(2) MHLJ 348
