Delhi High Court
Mr Arun Jaitley vs Arvind Kejriwal & Ors on 5 February, 2018
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 3457/2015
MR ARUN JAITLEY ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Rajeev Nayyar, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Manik Dogra, Advocate.
versus
ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS ..... Defendants
Through Mr.Anupam Srivastava with
Mr.Rishikesh Kumar, Mr.Mohd.Irsad,
Ms.Shreya Mehta and Mr.Dhairya
Gupta, Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 5th February, 2018
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
O.A.No.6/2018 & I.A.No.424/2018
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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)]
6. 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. ......."
(emphasis supplied)
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 05, 2018
KA
