KAPIL CO COREPACKS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERSVERSUSHARBANS LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH URS. Civil Appeal No. 6207 of 2010, decided on August 3, 2010…

(2010) 8 SCC 452

KAPIL CO COREPACKS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS
VERSUS
HARBANS LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH URS

Civil Appeal No. 6207 of 2010, decided on August 3, 2010

📌Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Or. 10 Rr. 2 & 1. Or. 12 R. 3-A and Or. 18 Rr. 4, 16 & 17 Examination under Or. 10 R. 2 Nature and object of Examination of a party vis-à-vis a document Admission as to document-Scope of Or. 10 R. 2 vis-à-vis Or. 10 R. 1, Or. 18 R. 17 & S. 165, Evidence Act contrasted Held, object of the examination under Or. 10 R. 2 CPC is to identify the matters in controversy and not to prove or disprove the matters in controversy, nor to seek admissions, nor to decide the rights or obligations of parties – Further held, power of court under Or. 10 R. 2 cannot be converted into a process of selective cross-examination Although court can combine its power under Or. 12 R. 3-A with its power under Or. 10 R. 2 but even in that case, it cannot cross-examine a party with reference to a document Evidence Act, 1872, Ss. 22, 58 & 165

📌Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or. 10 R. 2 and Or. 12 R. 3-A Examination of a party under Or. 10 R. 2, as to genuineness of document – Manner of Admission of document What amounts to Confronting the party only with signature/rubber stamp on disputed and unexhibited document without disclosing remaining portion thereof and requiring that party to identify that signature/stamp, held, beyond power of court under Or. 10 R. 2 In such case, answer of that party admitting signature to be its own, held, would not amount to admission of the document – More so when that party had already stated in its written statement that said signature was a clever forgery – Albeit question whether it was forgery or not will have to be determined on expert advice subsequent to evidence of contesting parties tested by cross-examination Evidence Act, 1872 Ss. 58, 22, 61, 62, 64 and 45

📌Fraud/Forgery/Mala fides
“Clever forgery” distinguished from mere “forgery” – Words and Phrases – “Clever forgery”, “forgery”

📌Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Or. 12 Rr. 3-A & 4, Or. 10 R. 1, Or. 8 R. 5, Or. 11 R. 8 Admission Eliciting or recording of Provisions under which contemplated Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss. 22, 18 and 58 Practice and Procedure Admission

📌Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Ог. 12 Rr. 3-А, 4, 6, Or. 10 R. 1, Or. 8 R. 5 & Or. 11 R. 8- Admission Nature of Held, it must be conscious and deliberate Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss. 58, 22 and 61 Procedure Admission Practice .

0Shares

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *