H.N.Rai & Ors. v. Ajay Mohan & Ors.

affirmative him. The Ld. Counsel petitioners, thereafter, proposed signature respondent No.1 covering matter document, except signature part, identify signature. This objected Counsel The respondent No. 1 ground a permissible cross-examination. Trial Court, thereafter pleased parties witness cannot confronted signature without showing the remaining portion of the document to him.

5. The learned Counsel petitioners submitted express provision forbidding method cross-examination petitioners entitled veracity credibility witness permissible petitioners resort method. He submitted distinction between document 4 signature. The learned Counsel petitioners submitted entire subject matter relates agreement. He pointed cross-examination, respondent No.1 deposed mother looking property signed documents mother whenever document, signed unable nature documents signed relation plot. The learned Counsel submitted genuineness signature issues arising therefore, petitioners entitled confront respondent No. 1 signature document covering remaining portion document, except signature part. The learned Counsel submitted answers respondent No. 1 mechanical documents necessary respondent No. 1 called upon to identify his signature by covering rest of the portion of the document.

6. Inviting attention sections 136, 137, 145, 146, 147 155 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, learned Counsel petitioners submitted genuineness document 5 dispute petitioners entitled show only the relevant part of the document i.e. the signature on that document and it was not necessary document. The learned Counsel relied decisions (1) BOMBAY COTTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY VS. R.B. MOTILAL SHIVLAL, reported in AIR 1915 Privy Council page 1 (2) PALCHUR SANKARA REDDI VS. PALCHUR MAHALAKSHMAMA, reported AIR 1922 Privy Council 315 (3) RAMA REDDY VS. V.V.GIRI , reported in AIR 1971 SC 1162, submitted Trial Court impugned wrongly rejected method of cross-examination by the impugned order.

7. Nos. The learned Sr. Counsel respondent 1 3, hand, submitted Hon’ble Supreme Court expedited hearing suit. He submitted evidence started, should interuption should middle otherwise impossible conduct trial. Relying decision PONNAMMAL VS. MODERN STORES, TIRUNEVELI, reported AIR (37) 1950 MADRAS 62 [C.N.88], Learned Sr. Counsel reiterated 6 Court should proceed Judgment without interruption. The learned Sr. Counsel submitted respondent Nos. 1 signature sought 3 confronted signature admitted cannot question testing veracity witness admitted signature document. He submitted manner respondent No.1 identify signature covering matter document permissible law. He further submitted entire process cross-examination search should cross-examination witness attempt respondent No.1 cross-examination. He submitted sections Indian Evidence Act citations referred learned Counsel petitioner applicable He submitted signature document sought admitted respondent No. a entire document signature cannot isolation. 1 He submitted Trial Court stopped petitioners adopting cross-examination respondent No.1 7 a particular method cross-examination disallowed Court. He submitted matter ultimately examined Appeal Court, adverse passed against petitioners petitioners should approached stage seeking interference in the impugned order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

8. I learned Counsel parties perused material record. method cross-examination asking respondent No. 1 identify signature covering matter In document, respondent No. It 1 impugned cannot faulted disallowing method cross-examination. agreement

1969. The petitioners substantiate permissible cross-examination. petitioners entitled cross-examine witness impeach credibility, however, cross-examining No witness, permissible adverse transgress whereby adopted prejudice unfair unjust injustice witness, insofar 8 procedure adopted during cross-examination. Merely because entire parties document, permitted resort cross-examination. If cross-examination unfair permitted, then, besides witness, matter wherever identification signatures involved, parties mode, which would have serious ramifications on the system.

9. 160 Here, reference sections 159, 161 Indian Evidence Act,

1872. Though directly applicable, underlying principles borrowed guidance assistance present case. These sections provide permissible witness, examination refresh memory referring ’any’ writing respect transaction questioned. In words, permissible document, relation transaction, questioned. The principle interest desirable recognize benefit recollection witness the whole facts. While 9 section 159, document permissible contemporaneous documents, section 160 further a witness permitted refresh memory a document though specific recollection themselves, correctly recorded document. Applying principles broadly, I reason present case, witness should permitted entire document entire wherein signature witness appears, particularly document record signature a document. In view, unfair witness benefit seeing document without asking identify signature document covering portion document. The principle practice substantive and the impugned order cannot be termed as injudicious or perverse.

10. Chapter X Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ("the Act" short) comprises sections 135 166, examination witnesses. Section 135 provides Act production 10 examination witnesses further states absence practice regard witnesses produced examined "the discretion" Court. Section 136 states "Judge" decide admissibility evidence "if thinks" proved relevant not. Section 144 hearing matters Court" writing speaks "opinion relation production document referred during evidence witness. Section 148 provides "the Court decide" question witness compelled answer matter relevant except affects credit witness injuring character. Section 150 "Court opinion" question without reasonable grounds, report circumstances High Court etc. Section 154 speaks Court respect "discretion" exercised questions witness cross-examination adverse party. Section 155 taking "consent Court" impeach credit witness him. Section 156 provides permitting evidence "if Court 11 opinion" certain circumstances, proved, corroborate testimony witness relevant testifies. Section 165 confers unrestricted powers Trial Court question pleases form, time, witness parties relevant or irrelevant in order to discover the relevant facts.

11. The purpose stating provisions during evidence recorded, Ld. before conducted unrestricted powers discretion Judge enjoys master overseeing whether manner conducted accordance law. The Judge thus, responsible delicate The discretion exercised obviously judicious, a common approach required deciding whether question not, insofar relevancy concerned regards cross-examination, etc. There objections adverse during course evidence particular cross-examination a decision/ruling 12 Ld. objections Judge. These decisions, whether overruling objection sustaining same, respected parties parties should higher Courts challenge decision/ruling Ld. Judge which would effect stoppage result causing unnecessary avoidable delays justice delivery system. It possible a case, affording unscrupulous litigant frivolous objections challenge decision/ruling during Court endless. challenge course Trial before higher thereby making litigation Of course, a circumstance, decision/ruling justified, it, result injustice. However, should extraordinary circumstances should possible, avoided. aggrieved always The prejudice caused Appeal Appeal Court can, objection during trial, resorting procedure prescribed Code Civil Procedure. The Ld Counsels a responsibility 13 conducting should possible ensure parties decisions Ld. Judge during course Trial. The Counsels officers Court justice dispensation system though a latitude during cross-examination, certain amount restraint exercised examine abused manner search for the truth or to extract favourable answers from the witness.

12. In present undisputedly matter part-heard hearing expedited Hon’ble Supreme Court. view, petitioners little choosing challenge In a decision/ruling during course examination, present petition article 227 Constitution India. In event, discussed above, I interference impugned order. The ruling Ld. Counsel Respondent Nos. 1 3 should interruptions relevant expedite hearing a part-heard concerned. 14 In rulings Ld. Counsel petitioners concerned, merely principles relate impeaching credibility witness assistance present case. Both Counsels fairly submitted precedence judicial pronouncement cross-examination calling witness identify signature covering portion document concerned, relevant sections Indian Evidence Act 872, also do not directly relate to the matter in controversy.

13. In result, petition dismissed quantified Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioners to the respondent Nos. 1 to

3. Rule stands discharged. ..... [A.A.Sayed, J.] 15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 4281 OF 2008 Date of Decision : July , 2008. For Approval and Signature : The Honourable Mr. Justice A.A.Sayed :

6. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Whether question substantial interpretation Constitution of India, 1950, or any Order made thereunder? Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judges ? involves a Whether question important whether should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Aurangabad office? a involves Judgment *****