Yogi M. P. Singh

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2010
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.19894/2009]



M/s. Kapil Corepacks Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ... Appellants

Vs.

Shri Harbans Lal (since deceased)
Through Lrs. ... Respondents



JUDGMENT



R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.


Leave granted. This appeal relates to the scope of Rule 2 of Order 10

of Code of Civil Procedure (`Code' for short) and the correctness of

invoking of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' for

short) in regard to answers given by a party in an examination under Order

10 Rule 2 of the Code.
2


2. Late Harbans Lal (for short the `plaintiff' of whom the respondents

are the legal heirs) filed a suit against the appellants on 5.9.2006, for

recovery of Rs. 66 lakhs. He alleged that second appellant and his brother

late Sohan Lal Dua (father of third appellant) on behalf of the first appellant,

had executed an Agreement/Receipt dated 7.9.2003 agreeing to sell him an

industrial property for a consideration of Rs. 2,02,41,600/- and had received

a sum of Rs. 33 lakhs made up of Rs. 9 lakhs by cheque and Rs. 24 lakhs in

cash towards the said agreement. He further alleged that the appellants were

unwilling to convey the property and failed to produce the documents

necessary to satisfy him about their title to the property; and that therefore in

terms of the agreement, he was suing for refund of double the amount

advanced by him.



3. The appellants filed a criminal complaint dated 23.2.2007 against

Harbans Lal and certain others alleging that the purported signatures of

second appellant and late Sohanlal Dua on the said agreement/receipt were

forged and that they had not executed any such agreement/receipt. On

5.3.2007, they also filed their written statement in the suit filed by Harbans

Lal denying the claim, and making a counter claim seeking a declaration that

the agreement/receipt put forth by the plaintiff was forged and void. The
3


appellants alleged that second appellant and his late brother had never signed

the agreement/receipt and the signatures found thereon, (purporting to be the

signatures of second appellant and his late brother) were clever forgeries;

that they did not receive Rs.24 lakhs said to have been paid in cash; that the

sum of Rs. 9 lakhs paid by cheque by Harbans Lal, was an advance to their

company (first appellant) obtained by late Sohanlal Dua to tide over a short

term financial crisis and the said amount was treated as share application

money.



4. In the said suit, the appellants filed an application under Section 151

of the Code 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 safe custody. On 31.7.2007 a learned

Single Judge of the High Court made an order directing as follows : (a)

parties to file their original documents within four weeks and matter to be

listed before the Joint Registrar for admission/denial of documents on

27.9.2007; (b) matter to be listed before court for framing issues on

8.1.2008; (c) parties to be personally present on the next date of hearing for

recording their statement under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code; and (d) the

original receipt/agreement of sale dated 7.9.2003 should be kept in safe
4


custody in a sealed cover. In regard to the appellants' application seeking

reference to a hand writing expert, the learned single Judge directed as

follows:

"......Insofar as the directions sought for sending the receipt/agreement to
sell to a hand writing expert is concerned, I am of the considered view that
the parties can lead their respective evidence including of hand writing
expert in support of their pleas. Application stands disposed of."




5. The appellants filed an appeal aggrieved by the refusal to refer the

matter to a hand writing expert, contending that they had obtained a

Preliminary Report dated 4.2.2007 from a Handwriting Expert with

reference to a photocopy of the Agreement/Receipt; and that the

Handwriting Expert could give expert evidence on the genuineness of the

document, only if he got an opportunity to examine the original also. The

said appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court on

1.11.2007 with the following observations:


"In our considered opinion, the apprehension of the learned counsel for the
appellant is misplaced and unfounded as the appellant can file an
application before the learned Single Judge seeking intervention of the
court to permit a hand writing expert to examine the original
receipt/agreement to sell dated 7.9.2003 take photographs etc. and give his
opinion with regard to the genuineness of the said document.

As and when any application is field by the appellant, the same shall be
considered by the learned Single Judge in terms of the observations made
herein giving due weightage to the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant."
5



In pursuance of it, the appellants filed an application on 7.1.2008 under

Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code to permit their Handwriting Expert to

inspect the original Agreement/Receipt dated 7.9.2003 and take photographs

thereof so that he can give a further report as also evidence. They also made

another application on 7.1.2008 to modify the order dated 31.7.2007 and

defer the examination under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code till the report of

the Handwriting Expert was received. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff

Harbans Lal having died on 12.11.2007, his legal representatives came on

record on 29.4.2008.



6. On 3.10.2008, a learned Single Judge directed the Principal Officer

and Managing Director of the first appellant-company to appear in person on

12.11.2008 along with its annual returns filed with the Registrar of

Companies, income tax returns and the balance sheets for the financial year

2003-2004 onwards. In pursuance of the said order, the second appellant

appeared before the court with the relevant documents on 12.11.2008. The

second appellant was examined under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code and his

statement recorded by the learned Single Judge, is extracted below:


"I am the Managing Director of M/s. Kapil Corepacks Pvt.Ltd. Rs. 9 lacs
received from the plaintiff is shown in the statement of account of the
6

defendant No.1 - Company. However, the said amount is not reflected in
the annual return of the defendant No.1-Company which was filed in the
Registrar of Companies. It is correct for the period ending 31st March,
2004 receipt of share application money of Rs. 9 lacs is not shown and
mentioned. As on 31st March, 2004, the paid up share capital of the
defendant No. 1- Company was Rs. 51 lacs. This did not include Rs. 9
lacs. Defendant No.1-Company is a Pvt. Ltd. company.

The plaintiff did not fill up any share application form/share allotment
form before payment of money. I am not aware whether a request letter or
a share application form is required to be filled up by a party before shares
can be allotted. At no point of time, defendant No. 1 has recorded or
mentioned entry of Rs. 24 lacs as received from the plaintiff in cash. We
know the plaintiffs. We have known them for several years.

Question : Please examine the stamp and the signatures and state
whether they belong to the defendant No. 1 - Company and who has
signed?

(Witness was shown copy of Agreement/Receipt in a manner that only
the rubber stamp and the signature on the document was visible and
the rest portion of the document was covered by a blank paper. For
the sake of convenience, the Agreement/receipt is marked `A')

Answer : Stamp at point `A' is that of defendant No.1 - Company and
the same has been signed by me.

Question : Are you ready and willing to pay back Rs. 9 lacs?

Answer : We are ready and willing to pay Rs. 9 lacs.

(emphasis supplied)

On conclusion of the said examination, the learned Single Judge made the

following order on 12.11.2008:


"Statement of the Managing Director of the defendant No. 1 -
Company has been recorded today in the court. The Managing
Director has admitted his signature on the Agreement/receipt as well
as stamp of the defendant No. 1 - Company on the said document.
The said document was thereafter shown to the witness after
removing blank paper. I may note here that the said document was
denied at the time of admission/denial and in the written statement.
7



Witness -Managing Director of defendant No. 1 Company has produced
copy of annual returns. These will be indexed and filed in the Registry
within two days. Copy of the same be supplied to the learned counsel for
the plaintiff within one week.

List this matter on 21st January, 2009 when all pending applications will
be considered.

Court on the next date will also examine whether or not to initiate
proceedings against Mr. Harish Kumar Dua, Managing Director of
defendant No. 1 Company under Section 340 Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and 195 of the Indian Penal Code."

(emphasis supplied)


7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed an intra-court appeal on

16.1.2009. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said appeal,

by the following order dated 20.1.2009.


"The Managing Director of the appellant had denied his signatures
earlier on the agreement/receipt but when his statement was recorded
under order 10 CPC before the court, an admission came that the
signature were his and stamp of defendant No. 1 company. The truth
emerged though belatedly.

We see nothing wrong with this process by which the learned judge has
recorded statement under Order 10 of CPC which is a tool for the court to
obtain elucidation of the matter and to obtain answer to any material
question. The authority of the court to examine a party under Order 10
Rule 2 CPC can hardly be doubted and undoubtedly the crucial document
is the agreement/receipt in respect of the matter in controversy.

We find that the appeal is wholly misconceived and without any merit."

(emphasis supplied)
8


8. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave. On the

contentions urged by the learned counsel, the following questions arise for

our consideration:


(i ) What is the scope and ambit of Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code?

(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 the remaining
portions of the document) and require him to identify the seal/stamp and
signature?

(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 Criminal Procedure read with Section 195 of
the Indian Penal Code?


Re : Question (i)

9. We may first advert to the relevant provisions. Rule 2 of Order 10 of

the Code as also Rules 1 and 3 are relevant and they are extracted below :


"ORDER 10 - EXAMIANTION OF PARTIES BY THE COURT

1. Ascertainment whether allegations in pleadings are admitted or
denied-

At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall ascertain from each party or
his pleader whether he admits or denies such allegations of fact as are
made in the plaint or written statement (if any) of the opposite party, and
as are not expressly or by necessary implication admitted or denied by the
party against whom they are made. The Court shall record such
admissions and denials.
9

2. Oral examination of party, or companion of party --

(1) At the first hearing of the suit, the Court-

(a) shall, with a view to elucidating matters in controversy in the
suit examine orally such of the parties to the suit appearing in
person or present in Court, as it deems fit; and

(b) may orally examine any person, able to answer any material
question relating to the suit, by whom any party appearing in
person or present in Court or his pleader is accompanied.

(2) At any subsequent hearing, the Court may orally examine any party
appearing in person or present in Court, or any person, able to answer any
material question relating to the suit, by whom such party or his pleader is
accompanied.

(3) The Court may, if it thinks fit, put in the course of an examination
under this rule questions suggested by either party.

3. Substance of examination to be written --

The substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing by the Judge,
and shall form part of the record."


10. Rule 1 enables the court to ascertain from each of the parties (or his

pleader), at the first hearing whether he admits or denies such of those

allegations of fact made in the pleadings of the other party, which were not

expressly or by necessary implication admitted or denied by him. In other

words, if the defendant in his written statement fails to expressly or by

necessary implication admit or deny any of the plaint allegations, the court

can ascertain from the defendant, whether he admits or denies the said plaint

allegations. Similarly, if the defendant has made some allegations against the

plaintiff in his written statement, and no reply is filed thereto by the plaintiff,
10


the court can ascertain whether plaintiff admits or denies those allegations.

Resort to Rule 1 of Order 10 is necessary only in cases where the court finds

that the plaintiff or the defendant has failed to expressly or impliedly admit

or deny any of the allegations made against him, by the other party.

Examination under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Code will not be necessary where

the pleadings of each party have been fully and clearly traversed by the other

party.



11. On the other hand, the examination under Rule 2 of Order 10 of the

Code, need not be restricted to allegations in the pleadings of the other party,

but can relate to elucidating any matter in controversy in the suit. Further,

under Rule 1 of Order 10, the court can examine only the parties and their

advocates, that too at the `first hearing'. On the other hand, Rule 2 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, either at the first hearing or subsequent hearings. The object of

oral examination under Rule 2 of Order 10 is to ascertain the matters in

controversy in suit, and not to record evidence or to secure admissions. The

statement made by a party in an examination under Rule 2 is not under oath,

and is not intended to be a substitute for a regular examination under oath
11


under Order 18 of the Code. It is intended to elucidate what is obscure and

vague in the pleadings. In other words, while the purpose of an examination

under Rule 1 is to clarify the stand of a party in regard to the allegations

made against him in the pleadings of the other party, the purpose of the oral

examination under Rule 2 is mainly to elucidate the allegations even in his

own pleadings, or any documents filed with the pleadings. The power under

Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code, cannot 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.


12. The above position of law is well settled. We need refer only to two

decisions in this behalf. In Manmohan Das v. Mt. Ramdei & Anr. [AIR 1931

PC 175], the Privy Council observed:

"No doubt under Order 10, Rule 2, any party present in Court may be
examined orally by the Court at any stage of the hearing, and the Court
may if it thinks fit put in the course of such examination questions
suggested by either party. But this power is intended to be used by the
Judge only when he finds it necessary to obtain from such party
information on any material questions relating to the suit and ought not to
be employed so as to supersede the ordinary procedure at trial as
prescribed in Order 18."
(emphasis supplied)


A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Arunagiri Goundan v.

Vasantharoya Koundan & Ors (AIR 1949 Madras 707), held as follows

referring to Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code :
12




"At the outset it must be pointed out that this (Order 10 Rule 2) does not
provide for an examination on oath. This provision was intended to be
used to elucidate the matters in controversy in suit before the trial began.
This is not a provision intended to be used to supersede the usual
procedure to be followed at the trial."




13. The object of Order 10 Rule 2 is not to elicit admissions. Nor does it

provide for or contemplate admissions. The admissions are usually

contemplated (i) in the pleadings (express or constructive under Order 8

Rule 5 of the Code); (ii) during examination of a party by the court under

Order 10 Rule 1 of the Code; (iii) in answers to interrogatories under Order

11 Rule 8 of the Code; (iv) in response to notice to admit facts under Order

12 Rule 4 of the Code; (v) in any evidence or in an affidavit, on oath; and

(vi) when any party voluntarily comes forward during the pendency of a suit

or proceedings to make an admission.



14. The power of court to call upon a party to admit any document and

record whether the party admits or refuses or neglects to admit such

document is traceable to Order 12 Rule 3A rather than Order 10 Rule 2 of

the Code. Nothing however comes in the way of the court combining the

power under Order 12 Rule 3A with its power under Order 10 Rule 2 of the

Code and calling upon a party to admit any document when a Party is being
13


examined under Order 10 Rule 2. But the court can only call upon a party to

admit any document and cannot cross-examine a party with reference to a

document.


Re : Question No.(ii)


15. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that confronting the

signature portion of a disputed document by covering up the remaining

portions, is a tool in the arsenal of the cross examining counsel. He

submitted that the court examining a party under Order 10 Rule 2 of the

Code while purporting to elucidate the matters in controversy, cannot

confront the signature portion of a disputed unexhibited document by

adopting the procedure of covering up the other portions of the agreement.



16. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted

that the power of the court under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code, to examine

any party with reference to any document is wide and unrestricted and

therefore, any procedure adopted to arrive at the truth, could not be said to

be a deviation from the normal examination under Order 10 Rule 2 of the

Code. He relied upon the decisions of several High Courts in support of his

contention that the court could confront a party with a document and seek
14


his admission in respect of its execution. The decisions relied upon are :

Bhanwarlal Kavad v. Shyamsunder [AIR 1984 Raj. 113], Amrita Devi v.

Sripat Rai [AIR 1962 All. 111], Rajiv Srivastava v. Sanjiv Tuli [AIR 2005

Del. 319] and Gautam Adani v. Container Corporation of India [150 (2008)

DLT 281]. On a careful consideration of these decisions, we find that they

are not of any assistance in this case.



16.1) In Bhanwar Lal Kavad (supra), a learned Single Judge of Rajasthan

High Court held:

"In my opinion the court should resort to the examination of the parties
under Rule 2, particularly on the documents, which are said to be signed
by the parties. .... it is better that the original documents are put to the
party and admission or denial is obtained after visual observations by the
party himself of the original documents. After looking into the documents,
the party would be in a position to admit or deny the same, which would
not be possible, if the same is got done by his pleader."


16.2) Learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Amrita Devi

(supra) and the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Rajiv Srivastava

(supra) held that an admission made by a party under Order 10 Rule 2 of the

Code is conclusive against him, and the court can proceed to pass judgment

on the basis of such admission.
15


16.3) In Gautam Adani (supra), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court

referred to the scope of Order 10 Rule 2 thus:


".....we are of the view that examination of the parties is a matter that is
per se intended not so much for determining any right or obligation in the
suit or resolving or adjudicating upon a controversy as it is for identifying
the precise area of controversy so that the same can be effectively
adjudicated upon. The distinction between any order which adjudicates
upon a controversy or a part thereof and another which simply attempts to
identify the real area in controversy cannot be lost sight of. Inasmuch as
the impugned order directed the defendants to remain present for
recording their statements under Order 10 Rule 2, it was an attempt to
identify the real issues in controversy and to elucidate matters which, in
the opinion of the learned Single Judge, required to be elucidated."


16.4) None of these decisions assists the respondents. Bhanwar Lal Kavad

recognizes the power of the court to call upon a party to admit a document.

Amrita Devi and Rajiv Srivastava reiterate the position that if a party makes

an admission of fact, it will be binding on him. Gautam Adani supports the

contention of the appellants that the scope of Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code is

limited to identifying the matters in controversy and not to adjudicate upon

the matters in controversy.



17. The object of the examination under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code is

to identify the matters in controversy and not to prove or disprove the

matters in controversy, nor to seek admissions, nor to decide the rights or

obligations of parties. If the court had merely asked the second appellant
16


whether he had executed the agreement/receipt or not, by showing him the

document (by marking the document for purposes of identification only

and not as an exhibit), it might have been possible to justify it as

examination under Order 10 Rule 2 read with Order 12 Rule 3A of the

Code. But any attempt by the Court, to either to prove or disprove a

document or to cross-examine a party by adopting the stratagem of

covering portions of a document used by cross-examining counsel, are

clearly outside the scope of an examination under Order 10 Rule 2 of the

Code and the power to call upon a party to admit any document under

Order 12 Rule 3A of the Code. What the High Court has done in this case

is to `cross-examine' the second appellant and not examine him as

contemplated under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code. We therefore hold that

the purported examination under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code, by

confronting a party only with a signature on a disputed and unexhibited

document by adopting the process of covering the remaining portions

thereof is impermissible, being beyond the scope of an examination under

Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code.



18. In this case the appellants-defendants denied having signed/executed

any agreement/receipt in favour of the respondents. In the examination under
17


Order 10 Rule 2, the court did not ask the second appellant whether he had

signed the document or not, by showing the document. What was done was

confrontation of a signature alone without disclosing the document. When so

confronted, the second appellant admitted the signature shown as his

signature. But that is not an admission of execution of agreement/receipt.

The specific case of appellants in the written statement was that the

Agreement/Receipt dated 7.9.2003 was a clever forgery. If a signature is a

clever forgery, there is a likelihood of the same passing the normal scrutiny

of the person to whom it is attributed. Similar is the position in regard to

stamping the name of the company. If a false signature is very different from

the real signature, and is easily identifiable, it will be a `forgery' but not a

`clever forgery'. Therefore, if the document allegedly containing the forged

signature is covered in such a manner as to show only a stamp/seal and

signature, and if a question is put by the court under Order 10 Rule 2 to

identify the seal/stamp and the signature and if the witness identifies the

signature as his and the stamp/seal as that of his company, there are two

possibilities : The first is that what is shown is the genuine signature of the

party and the genuine stamp of his company, and that he has identified and

admitted them. The second is that they are clever forgeries and the party

could not obviously identify the forgery when it was shown to him by
18


covering other portions of the document, when he is given only a normal

glance without an opportunity to scrutinize it properly. Whether it is a

forgery or not will have to be determined with reference to the expert

evidence and after the evidence of both plaintiff and defendants tested by

cross-examination.



19. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench committed an

obvious error in equating admission of a signature which is claimed to be a

clever forgery, as an admission of execution of the agreement/receipt and the

contents thereof. The observations of the learned Single Judge in his order

that "The Managing Director has admitted his signature on the

agreement/receipt as well as stamp of the defendant no.1 company on the

said document" and the further observation that on the basis of the said

answer, the second appellant could be proceeded under Section 195 of

Indian Penal Code read with Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, are

without any basis. Equally unwarranted is the observation of the Division

Bench : "The Managing Director of the appellant had denied his signature

earlier on the agreement/receipt, but when his statement was recorded under

Order 10 CPC before the court, an admission came out that the signature

were his.... The truth emerged though belatedly". Admission must
19


obviously be a conscious and deliberate act. Admission can be explained.

An admission of a signature is not an admission of execution of a document.

The power to identify the matters in controversy by examination of parties at

the pre-trial stage under Order 10 Rule 2, is completely different from the

power exercised by the court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to put

any question it pleases in any form, to a witness or a party in order to

discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, or the power under

Order 18 Rule 14 of the Code to recall and examine any witness. The court's

anxiety to do justice by speeding up the process of the suit should not itself

lead to injustice.


Re : Question No.(iii)


20. The Division Bench has affirmed the order of the learned Single

Judge that he will next hear whether he should proceed to initiate

proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 of Indian

Penal Code (`IPC' for short). Section 195 of Cr.P.C. provides that whoever

gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it

to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an

offence punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of

seven years or upwards, shall be punished as a person convicted of that
20


offence would be liable to be punished. Section 195 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.

provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under

section 195 of IPC when such offence is alleged to have been committed in,

or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in

writing of that Court. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. provides that when upon an

application made to it in that behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion

that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made

into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195 of

Cr.P.C. which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a

proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document

produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court

may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a

finding to that effect, make a complaint thereof in writing, sent it to a

Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction etc. Thus the power under

section 340 CrPC read with section 195 IPC can be exercised only where

someone fabricates false evidence or gives false evidence. By no stretch of

imagination, a party giving an answer to a question put under Order 10 Rule

2 of the Code when not under oath and when not being examined as a

witness, can attract section 195 of IPC and consequently cannot attract

section 195(1)(b) and section 340 of Cr.P.C.
21



21. The respondents relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of the

High Court in Satish Kumar v Union of India [2009 (108) DRJ 317] to

contend that there can be a prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in regard

to a statement under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code. The conclusion in Satish

Kumar that a party can be prosecuted under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for his

answers in an examination under Order 10 Rule 2 is erroneous and unsound.

As noticed above, the answers to an examination under Order 10 Rule 2 are

not on oath and therefore the party is not deposing as a witness on oath when

giving his answers under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code. In Satish Kumar, the

Delhi High Court purported to rely upon the decision of this Court in B.K.

Gupta v. Damodar H. Bajaj [2001 (9) SCC 742], to hold that prosecution

under section 340 CrPC is permissible in regard to answer given under

Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code. What this Court observed in B.K. Gupta was

that a complaint can be filed against a person who has given false affidavit

or evidence in a proceeding before the court. But a party giving an answer in

an examination under Order 10 Rule 2 is neither giving evidence nor giving

a affidavit. Section 340 of the Code will not be attracted with reference to

any statement under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code assuming that the Delhi

High Court had laid down the law rightly in Satish Kumar, the said

observation will not help the respondent in this case. In Satish Kumar, it was
22


held that a false statement given in the examination under Order 10 Rule 2

of the Code can give rise to criminal prosecution under Section 340 of

Cr.P.C. But in this case the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the

second appellant spoke the `truth' in response to the question in the

examination under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code. There is no finding that

second appellant made a `false statement' in his examination under Order 10

Rule 2 CPC. Therefore, the said decision will be inapplicable, even if it had

been rightly decided.


22. Consequently, the decision of the court to consider initiation of

proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. read with section 195 IPC in regard

to an answer to a question put under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code is ill-

conceived and wholly without jurisdiction.


Conclusion


23. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. The order dated

20.1.2009 of the Division Bench and the order dated 12.11.2008 of the

learned Single Judge, directing the matter to be listed to consider whether

the second appellant should be prosecuted under Section 340 Cr.P.C., are set

aside. As the process of confrontation of an unexhibited document by

covering portions of it by a court, is beyond the scope of examination under
23


Order 10 Rule 2 of the code, the answer to such question shall be excluded

from consideration and completely disregarded. The court conducting the

trial and hearing arguments shall decide the suit in accordance with law on

the basis of evidence placed and ignore the said `answer' under Order 10

Rule 2 of the Code.


24. We make it clear that whatever we have stated or observed during the

course of this Judgment, are only in the context of examining the correctness

of the procedure adopted under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code, and not

intended to be findings of fact.



...........................J.
(R V Raveendran)



New Delhi; ..........................J.
August 3, 2010. (H L Gokhale)






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 restricted to allegations in the pleadings of
the other party, but can relate to elucidating any matter in controversy in
the suit. Under rule 1 of Order 10, the court can examine only the parties
and their advocates, that too at the `first hearing'. On the other hand,
Rule 2 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, either at the first hearing or subsequent
hearings. The object of oral examination under rule 2 of Order 10 is to
ascertain the matters in controversy in suit, and not to record evidence or
to secure admissions. The statement made by a party in an examination under
rule 2 is not under oath, and is not intended to be a substitute for a
regular examination under oath under Order 18 of the Code. It is intended
to elucidate what is obscure and vague in the pleadings. In other words,
while the purpose of an examination under rule 1 is to clarify the stand of
a party in regard to the allegations made against him in the pleadings of
the other party, the purpose of the oral examination under rule 2 is mainly
to elucidate the allegations even in his own pleadings, or any documents
filed with the pleadings. The power under Order 10 rule 2, cannot 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.
[Para 11] [516-D-H; 517-A]

Manmohan Das v. Mt. Ramdei and Anr. AIR 1931 PC 175; Arunagiri Goundan v.
Vasantharoya Koundan and Ors. AIR 1949 Madras 707 - referred to.

1.2 The object of Order 10 rule 2 is not to elicit admissions. Nor does it
provide for or contemplate admissions. [Para 13] [517-G-H]

1.3 The power of court to call upon a party to admit any document and
record whether the party admits or refuses or neglects to admit such
document is traceable to Order 12 Rule 3A rather than Order 10 rule 2 of
the Code. Nothing however comes in the way of the court combining the power
under Order 12 rule 3A with its power under Order 10 rule 2 and calling
upon a party to admit any document when a Party is being examined under
Order 10 rule 2. But the court can only call upon a party to admit any
document and cannot cross-examine a party with reference to a document.
[Para 14] [518-C-D]

Bhanwarlal Kavad v. Shyamsunder AIR 1984 Raj. 113; Amrita Devi v. Sripat
Rai AIR 1962 All. 111; Rajiv Srivastava v. Sanjiv Tuli AIR 2005 Del. 319;
Gautam Adani v. Container Corporation of India 150 (2008) DLT 281 -
referred to.

2.1 The object of the examination under Order 10 rule 2 of the Code is to
identify the matters in controversy and not to prove or disprove the
matters in controversy, nor to seek admissions, nor to decide the rights or
obligations of parties. If the court had merely asked the second appellant
whether he had executed the agreement/receipt or not, by showing him the
document (by marking the document for purposes of identification only and
not as an exhibit), it might have been possible to justify it as
examination under Order 10 rule 2, Order 12 rule 3A of the Code. But any
attempt by the Court, to either to prove or disprove a document or to
cross-examine a party by adopting the stratagem of covering portions of a
document used by cross-examining counsel, are clearly outside the scope of
an examination under Order 10 rule 2 of the Code and the power to call upon
a party to admit any document under Order 12 rule 3A of the Code. What the
High Court has done in this case is to `cross-examine' the second appellant
and not examine him as contemplated under Order 10 rule 2. The purported
examination under Order 10 rule 2 of the Code, by confronting a party only
with a signature on a disputed and unexhibited document by adopting the
process of covering the remaining portions thereof is impermissible, being
beyond the scope of an examination under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code. [Para
17] [520-E-H; 521-A-B]

2.2 The instant case, the appellant-defendants denied having
signed/executed any agreement/receipt in favour of the respondents. In the
examination under Order 10 rule 2, the court did not ask the second
appellant whether he had signed the document or not, by showing the
document. What was done was confrontation of a signature alone without
disclosing the document. When so confronted, the second appellant admitted
the signature shown as his signature. But that is not an admission of
execution of agreement/receipt. The specific case of appellants in the
written statement was that the Agreement/Receipt dated 7.9.2003 was a
clever forgery. If a signature is a clever forgery, there is a likelihood
of the same passing the normal scrutiny of the person to whom it is
attributed. If a false signature is very different from the real signature,
and is easily identifiable, it will be a `forgery' but not a `clever
forgery'. Therefore, if the document allegedly containing the forged
signature is covered in such a manner as to show only a stamp/seal and
signature, and if a question is put by the court under Order 10 rule 2 to
identify the seal/stamp and the signature and if the witness identifies the
signature as his and the stamp/seal as that of his company, there are two
possibilities: The first is that what is shown is the genuine signature of
the party and the genuine stamp of his company, and that he has identified
and admitted them. The second is that they are clever forgeries and the
party could not obviously identify the forgery when it was shown to him by
covering other portions of the document, when he is given only a normal
glance without an opportunity to scrutinize it properly. Whether it is a
forgery or not will have to be determined with reference to the expert
evidence and after the evidence of both plaintiff and defendants tested by
cross-examination. [Para 18] [521-C-H; 522-A]

2.3 Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court
committed an obvious error in equating admission of a signature which is
claimed to be a clever forgery, as an admission of execution of the
agreement/receipt and the contents thereof. Admission must obviously be a
conscious and deliberate act. Admission can be explained. An admission of a
signature is not an admission of execution of a document. The power to
identify the matters in controversy by examination of parties at the pre-
trial stage under Order 10 rule 2, is completely different from the power
exercised by the court under section 165 of the Evidence Act to put any
question it pleases in any form, to a witness or a party in order to
discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, or the power under
Order 18 rule 14 of the Code to recall and examine any witness. The court's
anxiety to do justice by speeding up the process of the suit should not
itself lead to injustice. [Para 19] [522-B-G]

3.1 Section 195 IPC provides that whoever gives or fabricates false
evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he
will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence punishable
with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of seven years or
upwards, shall be punished as a person convicted of that offence would be
liable to be punished. Section 195 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. provides that no court
shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 195 IPC when
such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any
proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court.
Section 340 Cr.P.C. provides that when upon an application made to it in
that behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in
the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence
referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195 Cr.P.C. which
appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that
Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in
evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such
preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to
that effect, make a complaint thereof in writing, sent it to a Magistrate
of the first class having jurisdiction etc. Thus, the power under section
340 CrPC read with section 195 IPC can be exercised only where someone
fabricates false evidence or gives false evidence. By no stretch of
imagination, a party giving an answer to a question put under Order 10 rule
2 of the Code when not under oath and when not being examined as a witness,
can attract section 195 IPC and consequently cannot attract section 195(1)
(b) and section 340 Cr.P.C. [Para 20] [523-A-G]

Satish Kumar v Union of India 2009 (108) DRJ 317 - disapproved.

B.K. Gupta v. Damodar H. Bajaj 2001 (9) SCC 742 - referred to.

3.2 In the instant case, the High Court proceeded on the basis that the
second appellant spoke the `truth' in response to the question in the
examination under Order 10 rule 2 of the Code. There is no finding that
second appellant made a `false statement' in his examination under Order 10
rule 2 Consequently, the decision of the court in Satish Kumar case to
consider initiation of proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. read with
section 195 IPC in regard to an answer to a question put under Order 10
rule 2 of the Code is ill-conceived and wholly without jurisdiction. [Paras
21 and 22] [524-F-H]

4. The order dated 20.1.2009 of the Division Bench and the order dated
12.11.2008 of the Single Judge, directing the matter to be listed to
consider whether the second appellant should be prosecuted under section
340 Cr.P.C., are set aside. As the process of confrontation of an
unexhibited document by covering portions of it by a court, is beyond the
scope of examination under Order 10 rule 2 of the Code, the answer to such
question would be excluded from consideration and completely disregarded.
The court conducting the trial and hearing arguments would decide the suit
in accordance with law on the basis of evidence placed and ignore the said
`answer' under Order 10 rule 2 of the Code. [Para 23] [525-A-C]

Case Law Reference:

AIR 1931 PC 175 Referred to. Para 12
AIR 1949 Madras 707 Referred to. Para 12
AIR 1984 Raj. 113 Referred to. Para 16
AIR 1962 All. 111 Referred to. Para 16
AIR 2005 Del. 319 Referred to. Para 16
150 (2008) DLT 281 Referred to. Para 16
2009 (108) DRJ 317 Disapproved. Para 21
2001 (9) SCC 742 Referred to. Para 21

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6207 of 2010.

From the Judgment & Order dated 20.01.2009 of the High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi in FAO (OS) No. 16 of 2009.

Chaitan Sharma, Gaurav Kejriwal, Suveni Banerjee for the Appellants.

Sudhir Kumar, Abhijat P. Medh for the Respondents.





Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

O. 10 r. 2 - Scope and ambit of - Held: Examination u/r. 2 of O. 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, either at the first hearing or subsequent hearings -
Object of oral examination u/r. 2 of O. 10 is not to elicit admissions nor
does it provide for or contemplate admissions - Statement made by a party
in an examination u/r. 2 is not under oath, and is not intended to be a
substitute for a regular examination under oath u/o. 18 - Power u/o. 10 r.
2, cannot 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.

O. 10 r. 2 - Examination under - Confrontation of 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 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 execution of agreement/receipt.

O. 10 r. 2 - Answer given by a party, in response to a question u/o. 10 r.
2 - Prosecution u/s. 340 Cr.P.C. r/w s. 195 IPC on basis thereof - Held:
Party giving an answer to a question put u/o. 10 r. 2 when not under oath
and when not being examined as a witness, cannot attract s.195 IPC and
ss.195(1)(b) and 340 - Power u/s.340 Cr.P.C. r/w s. 195 IPC 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-S had executed an
agreement/receipt to sell the property for consideration, on behalf of the
first appellant; and that the appellants were not willing to convey the
property and failed to produce the necessary documents. The appellants
filed a criminal 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 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 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
agreement/receipt. The Single Judge of High Court directed to list the
matter to examine whether the 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 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 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 Criminal Procedure read with Section 195 IPC.