1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3252 of 2009 ( Shri Gurjar Kshatriya Samaj, Gondia ..vs.. Jayantilal Lalji Parmar and others ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Mr. Shashikant Borkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.R. Mundra, Advocate for respondents. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 7 th October, 2009 1. This petition is directed against two orders passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Gondia. By the first order dated 29-7-2009. The learned Judge deleted two words in affidavit of Jivrambhai Kuwarjibhai Tank, who was examined as a witness on behalf of defendant No.1. In the affidavit in evidence the witness had stated that in his and defendant No.1’s Presidential tenure no transactions were undertaken through the Secretary. The learned Judge directed deletion of the words which would refer to the tenure of the witness and restricted the sentence to the 2 tenure of defendant no.1. The second order pertains to refusal of permission to the plaintiff i.e. petitioner, to place on record a document dated 4-7-1990 written by Jivrambhai Kuwarjibhai Tank to Pravin Kumar Tank. This document would show that there was some transaction in respect of which Jivrambhai Kuwarjibhai Tank sought information from Pravin Kumar Tank. 2. According to the learned Counsel for petitioner, the learned trial Judge has absolutely no business to delete any word from the affidavit of a witness examined by the defendant and not by him. Secondly, the document was sought to be relied on for the purposes of contradicting the witness, for impeaching the credit of the witness and therefore, the question whether it pertained to the year in respect of which the suit was filed was irrelevant. The suit was filed pertaining to transaction from 1983-1986. Therefore, strictly, the transactions of 1990 was not relevant. But for the purposes of cross- examination the document could have been used. Order XIII Rule 1(3) of Civil Procedure Code enables a party to retain with it a document for the purpose of cross-examination and it could be produced even in breach of the said Rule 1. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that since the document was filed for 3 the purposes of cross-examination of Jivrambhai Kuwarjibhai Tank, it’s production should have been allowed. 3. On behalf of respondent No.1, the learned Counsel submits that even in the past the petitioner had infact filed applications for filing document vide Ex.105 and had also filed applications for adjournment vide Ex.109 on 24-7-2009 and 27-9-2009. In this context the application for production of the concerned document dated 4-7-1990 was rejected by the learned trial Judge on 30 th July 2009. 4. The learned trial Judge could undoubtedly have seen that the affidavit in evidence tendered by the defendant could not be altered by the learned trial Judge to the prejudice of the plaintiff. It was not sought by the plaintiff. It was tendered by the defendant. He should also have seen that a party has a right to withhold a document for the purposes of cross-examination of the witness and while impeaching of a credit of a witness by confronting the witness by a document, it is not necessary the document must pertain to the subject matter of dispute. It could have been about an all together different matter. 5. All the same these are questions pertaining to conduct of the trial by the 4 learned trial Judge and if interference in the trial by entertaining this petition is allowed, then at every lapse on the part of the learned trial judge a petition would be filed and the whole process of trial would get derailed. Therefore, on the principle that this Court should not interfere in these types of orders and allow the questions adjudicated only at the stage of appeal. The petition is dismissed. The Counsel would have an opportunity to raise these questions before the trial judge at appropriate state and appellate Court and should an occasion arise. Judge. adgokar