1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. .. :: O R D E R :: Firm Madan Chand Vs. Debt Relief Court & Anr. Sampat Rai S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6934/2005. .. Date of Order :: 21st April 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Hemant Kumar Jain, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.09.2005 as passed by the learned Judge, Debt Relief Court, Sriganganagar in Case No. 2/2002 upholding an objection against production of a document (Jamabandi) by the applicant in cross-examination of the non-applicant. Briefly put, the relevant facts and aspects as available from the material placed on record are that the petitioner- applicant has filed an application in the Debt Relief Court, Sriganganagar against the non-applicant (respondent No.2 herein) for recovery of an amount of Rs.32,802/-, said to be due towards the money allegedly borrowed by the respondent 2 No.2 and interest due thereupon till 31.03.2001. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has filed a reply to the application denying the averments regarding borrowing of money and that apart, has taken an objection regarding jurisdiction of the court concerned to entertain the application on the ground that the respondent No.2 neither lives at nor owns any agricultural land at Sriganganagar. The petitioner has pointed out that after framing of five issues, the evidence on behalf of the petitioner-applicant has been concluded and thereafter evidence of the non-applicant has begun; that the non-applicant has filed his affidavit in evidence and during cross-examination, counsel for the petitioner produced Jamabandi showing the name of the non-applicant as khatedar of a piece of land at Chak 3 GMD, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar allegedly for “refreshing the memory of the witness”; but an objection was taken that the said document having not been filed along with the plaint, the petitioner could not produce the same now. The learned trial court has proceeded to uphold the objection by its impugned order dated 15.09.2005. The learned trial court has observed that the document has not been produced earlier nor got exhibited and the applicant's evidence had already been concluded and in cross- examination the document cannot be got exhibited from the 3 non-applicant because, according to the learned trial court, the document was not of the non-applicant nor bearing his signatures nor was such that would refresh his memory. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was not necessary for the petitioner to file Jamabandi along with his plaint because at the relevant time there was no need to do so; that the need for producing the same has arisen only after the non-applicant has alleged that he was not living at Sriganganagar or owning any agricultural land in the District. It is submitted that to remind the non-applicant in his cross- examination that he owns agricultural land in Srigangangar District, and to refresh his memory, the Jamabandi was handed over to him; and the learned trial court has acted illegally in upholding the objection against production of such document. The impugned order, it is contended, remains contrary to the basic principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside. Though served, nobody has appeared for the respondent No.2. The impugned order cannot be sustained. It appears that while passing the impugned order on 15.09.2005, the learned trial court has not noticed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered on 02.08.2005 in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India : (2005) 6 4 SCC 344. An obvious mistake in the amended provisions of Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly in its Clause (4), has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court; and the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to observe and hold thus: “34. Order 7 Rule 14 deals with production of documents which are the basis of the suit or the documents in the plaintiff's possession or power. These documents are to be entered in the list of documents and produced in the court with the plaint. Order 7 Rule 14(3) requires leave of the court to be obtained for production of the documents later. Order 7 Rule 14(4) reads as under : “14. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross- examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” In the aforesaid Rule, it is evident that the words “plaintiff's witnesses” have been mentioned as a result of a mistake that seems to have been committed by the legislature. The words ought to be “defendant's witnesses”. There is a similar provision in Order 8 Rule 1A(4) which applies to a defendant. It reads as under : “1-A (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents- (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” 5 35. Order 7 relates to the production of documents by the plaintiff whereas Order 8 relates to production of documents by the defendant. Under Order 8 Rule 1-A(4) a document not produced by the defendant can be confronted to the plaintiff's witness during cross- examination. Similarly, the plaintiff can also confront the defendant's witness with a document during cross-examination. By mistake, instead of “defendant's witnesses”, the words “plaintiff's witnesses” have been mentioned in Order 7 Rule 14 (4). To avoid any confusion, we direct that till the legislature corrects the mistake, the words “plaintiff's witnesses”, would be read as “defendant's witnesses” in Order 7 Rule 14 (4). We, however, hope that the mistake would be expeditiously corrected by the legislature.” Once Clause (4) of Rule 14 CPC is read as per the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that the same is of an exception to the preceding clauses of Rule 14; and the requirements of filing of document with the plaint or stating its whereabouts or seeking permission to produce later, do not apply in case of the document produced in cross-examination of the defendant's witness. The principle would equally apply for the purpose of this case in relation to the cross- examination of the non-applicant's witnesses. In the aforesaid view, it appears appropriate that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted to the learned trial court for re-consideration of the objection and for passing appropriate order in accordance with law. 6 Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above; and the impugned order dated 15.09.2005 (Annex.1) is set aside. It shall be required of the learned trial court to re-consider the objection against exhibiting of the document in question in cross-examination and then to proceed further with the trial. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/