In a Regular Civil Suit No. 5 of 1995 filed before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Dharampur seeking permanent injunction against the defendants of the suit, challenge is made to the order dated 29th February 2012 whereby the Court has exhibited various electoral rolls in the deposition of Shri Babubhai Mahervanbhai Patel, Electoral Officer. In a suit preferred by the present petitioner-plaintiff, the trial Court had framed the issues on 30th July 2007. An application was filed by the plaintiff, after closure of evidence of both the sides inter alia urging for production of 9 documents by Exh. 129.
The petitioner being aggrieved by such an order preferred Special Civil Suit No.405 of 2009 seeking to quash such an order dated 29th December 2007. The same was permitted to be withdrawn on 30th July 2010.
There was yet another application moved by the petitioner being Application Exh. 219 inter alia praying for permitting production of documents and to give exhibit to the documents for being public documents and in the alternative to permit the plaintiff to call the witness for proving these documents.
When rejected, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred Special Civil Application No. 594 of 2011 and this Court, vide its Order dated 15th December 2011 [Coram : M.R Shah, J.] allowed this application quashing the order of learned Principal Civil Judge, Dharampur and directed to issue summons upon the Electoral Officer, Dhamarpur for him to appear and give deposition alongwith necessary documents Mark 129/6 [tentatively at Exh. 205]. It was explicitly permitted that it was open for the original defendant to cross examine the said witnesses. All concerned were directed to cooperate and such exercise was to be completed within three month.
Pursuant to such directions, the Electoral Officer was summoned and give his deposition. During the course of cross examination, he produced the electoral rolls of Years 1980; 1983; 1988; 1993; 1995; 2008; 2009 & 2010.
This petition is preferred on the ground that witness since has been examined as per the directions of this Court, he was summoned only for the limited purpose of proving tentative Exh. 205. However, the document sought to be produced could not be exhibited by the trial court as it was beyond the scope of the order. Resultantly, a request is made to quash and set-aside the order Exh. 18, Electoral Rolls and de-exhibited those documents.
On having heard learned advocate and on having perused the order impugned, it appears that Electoral Rolls from the years 1975 to 2012, the witness had carried with him Exh. 205 was found to be a certified copy of Electoral Rolls which was given a fulfledged exhibit, after the examination in chief of the Electoral Officer. When inquiry was made in the cross examination, he was candid enough to state that for the first time he has seen Exh. 205 and had no occasion to compare the said document with the original electoral rolls. He also had shown willingness to bring with him the electoral rolls from the year 1975 from his office and on the next adjourned date, he brought all these rolls of the year 1975 to 2012 and they being the public documents, the Court exhibited the same.
When objected to by the learned advocate for the original plaintiff on the ground that as the summons was only for the limited purpose of proving the tentative Exh. 205, the trial Court rightly held that there would be no boundaries to cross examination as long as the same is relevant. If the plaintiff was desirous of giving rebuttal evidence, he was permitted to so do it, however, considering the fact that Exh. 205 is a part of electoral roll of 1975 and in the subsequent electoral rolls, since the name of the petitioner was not appearing, the Court also found these documents relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the disputes between the parties.
The order is absolutely just and proper, passed in consonance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, no party can be permitted to bring lopsided facts before the Court and as it is the duty of the Court to adjudicate the disputes effectively. Cross examination which is meant to bring out the truth before the Court cannot be restricted under the pretext of the order of this Court. Though the summons was directed to be issued to the Electoral Officer for proving the document which was given tentative Exh. 205, this Court could not have meant to circumscribe the provisions of CPC as also that of the Indian Evidence Act by limiting the rights of the otherside to cross examine the witness concerned.
There being no jurisdictional error nor any illegality for this court to intervene in supervisory jurisdiction, this petition fails and stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
{Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J.} Prakash* Top