Arun Jaitley vs Arvind Kejriwal & Ors

Manmohan, J

O.A.No.6/2018 & I.A.No.424/2018

Present appeal has been filed by defendant No. 1-appellant challenging the order dated 31st October, 2017 passed by the Joint Registrar, whereby

his application being I.A.No.7371/2017 under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC for summoning of documents/records of DDCA was dismissed on the ground

that the impugned statements were not made by the defendant No.1 on the basis of the said documents and further the said documents were not in

public domain.

Learned counsel for defendants-appellants submits that under Order VIII Rule 1A(4) and Order XIII Rule1(3) CPC, the defendants can confront

the plaintiff with any documents in cross-examination and for this purpose it can summon any documents under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC. He submits

that the learned Joint Registrar had erred in not appreciating that there is a difference between seeking permission to file documents under Order VIII

Rule 1A(3) CPC and summoning of documents under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC.

Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants further submits that neither Civil Procedure Code nor the Evidence Act places any restriction on the

right of the defendants-appellants to summon any official for procuring a document for the purpose of confronting the witnesses at the time of cross-

examination. He submits that the only test for summoning of documents is their relevance to the case and the Minutes Books of DDCA between 1999

to 2014 are most certainly relevant to the defence of the defendants.

Per contra, Mr.Rajeev Nayyar, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff states that the documents not filed earlier and if denied by the witness when

confronted during his cross-examination, can only be proved at the stage of defendants’ evidence. In support of his submission, he relies upon the

judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Vs. Pawan Khanna, CM(M) No.630/2015 decided on 29th July, 2015.

In the opinion of this Court, Order XVI Rule 6 has to be read with Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC which pre-supposes that a witness whom a party

proposes to summon to produce documents is mentioned by the said party in his/her list of witnesses. In fact, Order XVI Rule 6 does not contemplate

that a third party can be summoned to attend the Court, to give evidence and also to produce the document. It only contemplates that a person, who is

one of the persons mentioned in the list of witnesses, can be summoned to produce the document without being summoned to give evidence. [See

Rani Bai & Ors. Vs. Thakur Ganesh Singh & Ors., 2003 (2) A.P.L.J. 443 (HC)]

This Court is of the view that Order XVI Rule 6 CPC deals with a Part-B witness as provided in the Delhi High Court Rules i.e. a witness who has

been asked to only produce documents. In Netram Sadaram Palliwal Vs. Bhagwan Wallaji Kunbi and another, AIR 1941 Nagpur 159 the High Court

has held as under:-

“…….Under O. 16, R. 6, even a witness who is summoned merely to produce a document is deemed to have complied with the summons

if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. …….â€​

(emphasis supplied)

This Court also finds that in I.A.No.7371/2017 filed by defendant No. 1-appellant no ground for not summoning the witness and/or documents prior

in time has been given. Consequently, the grounds on which the appeal has been filed, are untenable.

However, keeping in view the fact that the Minutes of Meeting dated 10th February, 2003 and 06th April, 2003, which were put to the plaintiff, deal

with the meetings in which the plaintiff himself was present, this Court, in the interest of justice and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

present case directs the DDCA to produce the said two documents i.e. certified extracts of Minutes of Meetings dated 10th February, 2003 and 06th

April, 2003, within two days of receipt of this order so that the said two minutes of meetings can be put to the plaintiff on the scheduled date of

 hearing.

This Court clarifies that the request/prayer for production of the Minute Books between the period from 1999 to 2014 is declined as there is no

ground in I.A.No.7371/2017 as to why the said documents are relevant to the present case and why they were not summoned at the initial stage. The

test of „relevancy‟ or „sufficient cause‟ is not satisfied.

Also a civil suit, as the present lis is, is guided and governed by pleadings contained therein and it is on the basis of which that issues are framed.

Notwithstanding the pleadings, the procedural law governing the conduct of the civil suit provides for issues to be framed so as to guide and regulate

the trial and to prevent the parties, witnesses and the counsels during the course of the trial going ‘astray’ and deposing on matters not relevant

for adjudication of the issues framed.

A relevancy in the context of issues read with pleadings is the guiding light of scope of evidence and adjudication in a civil suit. In the present suit,

specific issues have been framed and the court is to render adjudication thereon only.

It is also a well settled principle that no amount of evidence even if led in the course of recording of evidence, which is beyond the pleadings and

the issues framed can guide adjudication. Once that is so, the question of relevancy of evidence being adduced / sought to be adduced becomes very

important. Though a cross examining party is permitted under the CPC to put any document to the witness in cross examination, even a document

which such party has herein before not produced, but the said rule also does not entitle the cross examining party to thereunder introduce a document

or an evidence which is dehors the issues and the pleadings. The defendant No.1, by calling for the Minutes Book for the period 1999 to 2014, is

seeking to do precisely that and without regard to the relevancy.

Another important principle for the following procedure prescribed for conduct of a suit, is to save time. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for

damages for defamation from specified acts and the defendant No.1 has to confine itself to defending the said acts only and not to adduce the

evidence of other acts of the plaintiff.

Moreover, this Court is of the view that a fishing and roving inquiry cannot be allowed at this stage in the guise of the present application.

Consequently, present appeal and application stand disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions and observations.

Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.