C.R. No. 2356 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2356 of 2011 Date of Decision: April 7, 2011 Shyam Sunder …..Petitioner Vs. Hari Ram and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.M.K. Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order, an application filed by the defendant- petitioner for producing documents i.e. a copy of the plaint filed by defendant in a suit (annexure P-2), a copy of the FIR in which the defendant is shown to be son of Kedar Nath and another sale deed in which the defendant has been shown as son of Kedar Nath have not been permitted to be placed on record. Counsel for the defendant- petitioner has submitted that the controversy before the trial Court to be adjudicated upon is whether Hari C.R. No. 2356 of 2011 [2] Ram, defendant- respondent is the adopted son of Asha Ram or he is the son of Kedar Nath, the natural father for all legal purposes. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that the application for production of documents has rightly been dismissed being not maintainable. In case the defendant- petitioner wants to impeach the credibility of the plaintiff- respondent, he has got a right to cross- examine the plaintiff-respondent pertaining to his previous statements in writing as per provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. He has also got a right to confront the plaintiff- respondent with documents which are sought to be produced on record through an application. The relevancy of the questions in cross-examination is to be determined as per provisions of Section 148 of the Evidence Act by the Court during the course of cross- examination. The Court can even compel the witness to answer a question in cross-examination if the question put in cross-examination is meant to determine the truth or to impeach the credibility of the witness or if it relates to even a previous statement in writing. No ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order dated March 4, 2011. This revision petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that it will be open to the defendant-petitioner to confront the plaintiff- respondent in cross-examination the documents which have not been permitted to be placed on record by the trial Court. For relevancy of the questions put in cross-examination the order dated March 4, 2011 will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the defendant- petitioner. April 7, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) C.R. No. 2356 of 2011 [3] sanjay JUDGE