Limited use of Order 10 Rule 2 CPC: it cannot replace evidence, selective cross-examination, or support criminal proceedings.

Order 10 Rule 2 CPC is confined to clarifying controversies, obscure pleadings and document issues; it is not a substitute for trial evidence or cross-examination, and it cannot be used to prove or disprove disputed facts. Confronting a party only with the signature or stamp portion of a disputed unexhibited document by covering the rest is impermissible, because admission of a signature is not admission of execution of the whole document. Answers given in such an examination are not evidence on oath and cannot, by themselves, found proceedings under Section 340 CrPC read with Section 195 IPC. The impugned answer was directed to be disregarded and the suit was to proceed on admissible evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) the scope and ambit of Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (ii) whether, in an examination under Order 10 Rule 2, a court can confront a party only with the signature portion of a disputed unexhibited document by covering the remaining portions and require identification of the stamp and signature; and (iii) whether an answer given by a party in such examination can found proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code.

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

Analysis: Order 10 Rule 2 is intended to elucidate matters in controversy and to clarify obscure or vague aspects of the pleadings or documents. It is not a device for recording evidence, securing admissions, or supplanting the ordinary trial procedure. The examination is not on oath and cannot be converted into a form of selective cross-examination. The power under Order 12 Rule 3A to call upon a party to admit a document is distinct, though it may be used alongside Order 10 Rule 2 where appropriate.

Conclusion: The scope of Order 10 Rule 2 is limited to elucidation of controversies and does not extend to proving or disproving disputed facts or documents by cross-examination-style questioning.

Issue (ii): Whether, in an examination under Order 10 Rule 2, a court can confront a party only with the signature portion of a disputed unexhibited document by covering the remaining portions and require identification of the stamp and signature?

Analysis: Confronting only the signature or stamp portion of a disputed document by covering the rest of it is not a legitimate exercise under Order 10 Rule 2. Such a procedure is effectively cross-examination and may create an appearance of admission without testing the document in the proper evidentiary manner. An admission of a signature is not the same as an admission of execution of the entire document, particularly where the allegation is that the document itself is a forged or cleverly forged instrument.

Conclusion: Such confrontation is impermissible and falls outside the scope of Order 10 Rule 2.

Issue (iii): Whether an answer given by a party in such examination can found proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code?

Analysis: Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the related bar in Section 195 are attracted only where false evidence is given or fabricated in relation to a proceeding. Answers under Order 10 Rule 2 are not evidence on oath and do not amount to deposition as a witness. Therefore, a response given in such an examination cannot, by itself, sustain criminal prosecution under those provisions.

Conclusion: Proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be initiated on the basis of an answer given under Order 10 Rule 2.

Final Conclusion: The orders below were set aside, the impugned answer was directed to be disregarded, and the suit was to proceed on the basis of admissible evidence in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Order 10 Rule 2 is a limited pre-trial power meant only to elucidate controversies, and it cannot be used as a substitute for trial evidence, selective cross-examination, or the foundation for criminal prosecution under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---