https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299377 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. en-us Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Dec 2021 13:44:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299377 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299377