Appeal allowed, High Court orders set aside for improper document confrontation. Trial to proceed based on admissible evidence.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's orders directing consideration of prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that confronting a party with only the signature portion of a disputed document under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC is improper and should be disregarded. Answers given under Rule 2 do not constitute evidence for criminal prosecution. The trial court was instructed to decide the suit based on admissible evidence, excluding answers obtained improperly under Rule 2. The judgment clarified procedural correctness under Rule 2 without making factual findings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Scope and ambit of Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
2. Validity of confronting a defendant with only the signature portion of a disputed, unexhibited document under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC.
3. Possibility of prosecuting a party under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on answers given under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Re: Scope and Ambit of Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Order 10 Rule 2 CPC pertains to the oral examination of parties by the court to elucidate matters in controversy in the suit. It is distinct from Rule 1 of Order 10, which is used to ascertain admissions or denials of allegations in pleadings. Rule 2 allows the court to examine any party or person accompanying a party at any stage of the hearing to clarify the issues in dispute. The examination under Rule 2 is not intended to record evidence or secure admissions but to clarify what is obscure or vague in the pleadings. The court's power under Rule 2 should not be misused to conduct a selective cross-examination before the trial begins. The object is to identify the matters in controversy, not to prove or disprove them.

Re: Validity of Confronting a Defendant with Only the Signature Portion of a Disputed, Unexhibited Document under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC

The court's power to examine a party under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC does not extend to confronting a party with only the signature portion of a disputed document by covering the remaining portions. This method is typically used in cross-examination by counsel and is not appropriate for a court's examination under Rule 2. The court's role under Rule 2 is to elucidate matters in controversy, not to prove or disprove documents or seek admissions. Confronting a party with a signature alone without showing the entire document can lead to an erroneous identification, especially if the signature is a clever forgery. The High Court's action of confronting the second appellant with only the signature portion of the disputed document was beyond the scope of Order 10 Rule 2 CPC.

Re: Possibility of Prosecuting a Party under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 IPC Based on Answers Given under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC

Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 IPC allows for the prosecution of a person who fabricates or gives false evidence. However, the answers given by a party under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC are not given under oath and do not constitute evidence or affidavits. Therefore, such answers cannot attract prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The decision of the High Court to consider initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. based on the second appellant's answers during the examination under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC was erroneous and without jurisdiction. The examination under Rule 2 is meant to clarify issues, not to serve as a basis for criminal prosecution.

Conclusion

The appeal is allowed. The orders of the Division Bench and the Single Judge of the High Court, which directed consideration of prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C., are set aside. The process of confronting a party with a signature alone on a disputed document is beyond the scope of Order 10 Rule 2 CPC and should be disregarded. The trial court should decide the suit based on the evidence presented, excluding the improperly obtained answer under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC. The observations made in this judgment are specific to the procedural correctness under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC and do not constitute findings of fact.

---