LexM/S. KAPIL COREPACKS PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus SHRI HARBANS LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 500 A M/S. KAPIL COREPACKS PVT. LTD. & ORS. B c v. SHRI HARBANS LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. (Civil Appeal No. 6207 of 2010) AUGUST 3, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 0. 10 r. 2 - Scope and ambit of- Held: Examination ul r. 2 of 0. 10 enables the court to examine not only any party, but also any person accompanying either party or his pleader, to obtain answer to any material question relating to the suit, D either at the first hearing or subsequent hearings - Object of oral examination u/r. 2 of 0. 10 is not to elicit admissions nor does it provide for or contemplate admissions - Statement made by a party in an examination ulr. 2 is not under oath, and is not intended to be a substitute for a regular examination under oath ulo. 18 :__Power ulo. 10 r. 2, cannot E be converted into a process of selective cross-examination by the court, before the party has an opportunity to put forth his case at the trial. 0. 10 r. 2 - Examination under - Confrontation of F defendant with only the signature portion of a disputed unexhibited document filed by plaintiff by covering remaining portions of document and require him to identify seal/stamp and signature - Permissibility of - Held: Not permissible - Any attempt to either prove or disprove a document or to G cross-examine a party by adopting the stratagem of covering portions of a document used by cross-examining counsel, are outside the scope of examination u/o 10 r. 2 - Confrontation of signature alone without disclosing the document is not an admission of executio_r: of agreement/receipt. H 500 KAPIL COREPACKS PVT. LTD. v. HARBANS LAL (SINCE 501 DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. 0. 10 r. 2 - Answer given by a party, in response to a A question u/o. 10 r. 2- Prosecution uls. 340 Cr.P.C: rlw s. 195 /PC on basis thereof - Held: Party giving an answer to a question put ulo. 10 r. 2 when not under oath and when not being examined as a witness, cannot attract s. 195 /PC and ss.195(1)(b) and 340 - Power u/s.340 Cr.P.C. rlw s. 195 /PC B can be exercised only where someone fabricates false evidence or gives false evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.195(1)(b) and 340 - Penal Code, 1860 - s.195. H-predecessor of respondents filed a recovery suit against the appellants. He contended that the second appellant and his brother-5 had executed an agreement/ receipt to sell the property for consideration, on behalf c of the first appellant; and that the appellants were not willing to convey the property and failed to produce the D n~cessary documents. The appellants filed a criminal I complaint against H and others alleging that the purported signatures of second appellant and S on the said agreement/receipt were forged; that they had not executed any such agreement/receipt; and also denied E the same in the written statement to the recovery suit. The appellants then filed an application for referring the agreement/receipt to a hand writing expert or a Government Forensic Laboratory for examination of the signatures therein and for keeping the said document in F safe custody which was disposed of by High Court. Thereafter, the first appellant was examined under Order 10 rule 2 CPC. He admitted the signature on the agreeinent/receipt. The Single Judge of High Court directed to list the matter to examine whether the G Managing Director of the first appellant was to be prosecuted u/s. 340 Cr.P.C. and s. 195 IPC. The Division Bench upheld the order. Hence the appeal. The questions which arose for consideration in this H 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A appeal are as to (i) what is the scope and ambit of Order 10 Rule 2 CPC; (ii) whether the court could, in an examination under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code, confront a defendant with only the signature portion of a disputed unexhibited document filed by the plaintiff (by covering B the remaining portions of the document) and require him to identify the seal/stamp and signature; and (iii) whether on the basis of the answer given by a party, in response to a question under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code, the court . could prosecute him under Section 340 of Code of C Criminal Procedure read with Section 195 IPC. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The examination under rule 2 of Order 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 need not be D restricted to allegations in the plead
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.