LexLAKSHMI & ANR. versus CHINNAMMAL @ RAYYAMMAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 661 + LAKSHMI & ANR. A v. CHINNAMMAL @ RAYYAMMAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2243 of 2009) ~ -\ APRIL 8, 2009 B (S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0.13 r.10 - Genuineness of a deed challenged before civil court - Initiation of criminal proceedings also - In criminal c proceeding deed sent for examination of signature and thumb, impression of the person challenging it, to forensir;; expert - Plaintiffs application calling for forensic report ..., regarding handwriting allowed - But application calling for report regarding thumb impression dismissed - Held: D Dismissal of the later application not justified - If bringing on record a document is essential for proving a case, ordinarily the same should not be refused - The procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at just decision must be encouraged. Appellant and respondents were co-sharers. E Allegedly they entered into a deed of partition. Appellant filed a suit questioning the genuineness of the deed. He also lodged an FIR in that regard. In the criminal ,... _, proceedings, the partition deed was sent for examination of signature and thumb impression of the appellant. F In the pending suit, appellant filed an application for calling for the report of forensic report from the court of Judicial Magistrate as regards purported signature and the same was allowed. Thereafter he filed another G • application for calling for the forensic report regarding ~ the thumb impression. Trial court rejected the application .. , on the ground that the application did not furnish requisite particulars and Order 13 Rule 10 CPC did not 661 H 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. A empower civil court to direc:t production of document from the custody of police. A.n application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. B Allowing the appeal, the court HELD: 1.1. If bringing on record a document is essential for proving the case by a party, ordinarily the same should not be refused; the Court's duty being to find out the truth. The procedural mechanics necessary C to arrive at a just decision must be encouraged. The court in the said process, however, would not encourage any fishing enquiry. It would also not assist a party in ·procuring a document which he should have himself filed. [Para 12) [668-D, E] D 1.2. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that by calling for such documents, the court shall not bring about a situation whereby a. criminal proceeding would remain stayed as it is a well settled principle of law that E where a civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding is pending, the latter shall get primacy. [Para 13) [668-F) 1.4. In a civil suit, a document has to be proved. The report of an expert is also required to be brought on record in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act. F Having regard to the provisions contained in Order XIII, Rule 8 CPC, the civil court would furthermore be entitled to substitute the original document by a certified copy. Therefore, the original document could have been called G H for. [Para 14) [669-G] Union of India and Anr. v. The State and Anr. 1961 XLll ITR 753; Kai/ash v. Nanhku and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480 and Uday .Shankar Triyar v. Ram Ka/ewar Prasad Singh and Anr. (2006) 1 sec 75, relied on. LAKSHMI & ANR. v. CHINNAMMAL @ RA YY AM MAL & 663 ORS. Anil Behari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dessi and Ors. A AIR 1955 SC 566 and Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakunta/a Devi (2004) 1 SCC 438, referred to. 2.1. In view of the fact that appellants in their application disclosed that a First Information Report was 8 lodged on 1.11.2003 against the defendants. The same was registered as Crime No.699/03; that the original partition deed dated 28.11.2002 was sent to the Director, Forensic Science Department along with appellant's admitted signatures by the court of Judicial Magistrate, C at the request of the Investigating Officer and that plaintiffs have come to learn that a report of the expert was also filed therein in regard to the thumb impression of the appellants, trial Judge, committed a manifest error in holding that requisite particulars have not been furnished. [Paras 9 and 10) [667-F-G; 668-A-B] D 2.2. Trial Judge himself had allowed a similar application so far as the opinion of the handwriting expert was concerned. It is, th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.