 I see admissions and denials. Good evening friends and amongst us we have again our star celebrity of the YouTube channel Mr. Tessar Somashrikar and as usual his sessions always go well because the deeper insights of any perspective of law and beyond law what is synonymous with our name. And today we requested him to take insights on the topic on discovery and inspections, the practical aspects with the legal journey. Esar Somashrikar as such doesn't require any introduction. He's a famous resource person not only in the Karnataka Judicial Academy but I can say now on different YouTube channels especially the beyond law fields. He has taken various topics and they have always been well received. He's a former district judge and I will request sir to share his insights. You're waiting for that on a Sunday evening. There couldn't be better takes to start especially in Punjab and Triana High Court when the court starts from tomorrow. You have insights from a person who is always insightful. Over to you. Thank you Mr. Vithas Chetra. Good evening friends. The subject for discussion is discovery and inspection. So you'll have to discover something from me by interrogating me at the end. Inspect how I am performing. So I am on trial now with the subject. Now I propose to direct topic into two units. Provisions in the civil procedure court relating to discovery and inspection. Then provisions relating to that in the commercial courts act. Are you hearing me? Are you hearing me? Yes. In the commercial courts act. Those who are initiated may not be knowing that in the section portion of the civil procedure court also there is a provision relating to discovery and inspection. If you discover it you will get it. Triangle go to section 30 CPC. Subject to such conditions and limitations as will be prescribed. The court may at any time either of its own motion or on the application of any party. Make such orders as would be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and answering the bidrag entries. The admission of documents and facts and the discovery inspection production impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible as evidence. For the benefit of the junior advocates who have joined this webinar. I would like to tell you that in many of the provisions of the section portion of the civil procedure court the word prescribed is used. The word prescribed is also defined in section 2 subsection 16 prescribed means prescribed by rules. Again rules is defined in section 2 subsection 18. Rules means rules and forms contain in the first schedule or made under section 122 or 125. Rules and forms contain in the first schedule. Whenever we think of a schedule to an enactment what comes to our mind is it contains some appendix some forms and other things. But in the civil procedure court the first schedule contains the order portion. Commencing from order 1 and ending with order 51. The first schedule to the civil procedure court has the order portion. In each order you know there are number of rules. Therefore prescribed means prescribed by the rules. Rules means the forms and rules contained in the schedule in the first schedule to the civil procedure court and rule framed under 122 and 125. They enable the high court to frame rules for the functioning of the trial courts and of its own functioning that does not go about it. So what I am telling the junior members is first read the section portion of the civil procedure court to see whether there is a corresponding provision in the order portion. First discover that section portion then go to the order portion. Section 30 makes a very interesting reading. Subject to such conditions and limitations as prescribed by order level CPC. The court may at any time either of its own motion or on the application of any party. Times are such hardly the provisions of order 11 are invoked by any party. When the parties themselves do not invoke the provisions of order 11, where is the question invoked in those provisions? Where is the question of the court invoked in the provisions? I wonder is it practically possible for the court to invoke the provisions of section 30? It may on its own. When I read the commentary it says that the object behind section 30 is to enable the trial court to cut short the trial and if the court thinks that it is a case based more on documents then it could think of interrogaries. I meant to see a court making drafting interrogaries and delivering it to the parties. Be that as it may. Let us see as to what advocates should do in the matter of discovery and inspection. I will first read the provisions as they are explained to you the provisions then take the case law then go to the provisions of the commercial courts act that should be the way in which we go about this. As I told you court can also show more to do this. We have a commentary on CPC by Sartre in the 11th edition of Sartre CPC volume 1. This is what the author says of course by referring to some whole decision where it is obvious that the decision would depend largely upon documentary evidence. The judge should himself make the necessary order center section 30 in the absence of any application by either party. On the webinar I see one very enthusiastic judicial officer. I do not want to pass the embarrassment to him by mentioning his name and I don't see the photo of the other judicial officer but I know that he has joined his equally enthusiastic. At least these two enthusiastic judicial officers would in a given case so motto invoke these powers and deliver interrogate. And that enthusiastic officer is also nodding his head. Thank you. So where it is obvious that the decision would depend largely upon documentary evidence. The judge should himself make the necessary order center section 30 in the absence of any application by either party. The participants then may ask me a question. Did you as a judicial officer invoke this? I must candidly tell that I did not invoke this. There were three occasions when I had to deal with applications under order 11. One as a lawyer in Chitradurida then as a Munsif in Mysore then again as a Munsif in Chitradurida. All the three were bars where there were veteran civil lawyers. They knew the provisions of order 11. They had discovered the worth behind it. They had inspected each one of those provisions and they were able to deliver interrogatories even during moral cross examination very effectively and therefore they had made use of these provisions. So what I am trying to impress upon the judicial officers who have joined here is that you have also power to invoke the provisions of section 30. I mean the provisions relating to discovery and inspection. Now you will find the title to order 11 as discovery and inspection. The provisions of order 11 have two parts. One part relating to discovery. The other part relating to inspection. What is this discovery? Discover something by interrogating the opposite party. Interrogating means questioning. Don't invoke your knowledge of section 27 of the evidence set and say that the police officer interrogates the accused and discovers something. Maybe that may give you a clue to understand the slope of this. The opponent has to be interrogated. Some questions will have to be put to the opponent. Discover something from him that is elicit answers. This is the provision relating to discovery. What is that inspection? Inspection of documents on the application of either party to the suit. The court may call upon the other party to produce documents to inspect or the other party may say those documents are in my advocate's office. You will go there and inspect. I kept these documents at a particular place. You go there and inspect. It is really not meant for producing the documents in court. Though of course we have been making applications 11 for production of documents. Whatever it be, the provisions of part 11 are contained in two parts. One relating to discovery by delivering in trajectories. That is a questionable opponent. And then by asking the by requesting the court to direct the opponent to produce certain documents for inspection. Let me start from the beginning. I would also request the participants to simultaneously open that page in the bear act of the civil procedure code. If either by choice or chance you have the bear act with you. Please go to appendix C in the civil procedure code. The form in which affidavit has to be filed. Answer has to be given. Interactories have to be delivered. They're all contained in appendix C. Simultaneously open that page also so that it will be easy for you to understand what I tell you about the main provisions of order 11. As I told you at the cost of repetition. It has two parts. Discovery by delivering in target release. That is a questionnaire and then inspecting the documents which the opponent produces. Rule one of all relevant. Discovery by interrogaries. In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leaving the court may deliver interrogaries in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or anyone or more of such parties. And such interrogaries when delivered shall have a note at the front at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogaries each of such person is required to answer. Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogaries to the same party without an order for the purpose. Provided also that interrogaries do not relate to any matter in questioning the suit shall be deemed irrelevant not withstanding that they may be admissible on the oral cross examination of a witness. What is this? Interrogate at least it do not relate to any matters in questioning the suit shall be deemed irrelevant not withstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross examination of a witness. Please go to part three of the evidence act section 146. When a witness is cross examining she may in addition to the questions here and after refer to be asked any questions which tend to test his veracity to discover who he is and what his position in life are to shake his thread it by injuring his character although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to discriminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or for future. When a witness is cross examining the evidence act powers the opponent to put such questions to test the veracity or the credibility of the witness. A question is asked to you. You are affiliated to a particular political party. The plaintiff belongs to that party. You were a witness for the plaintiff in a number of cases. There is a criminal case against the plaintiff and plaintiff entered upon defense and you supported the plaintiff or you are cited as a prosecution witness but you turned hostile. None of those questions has any relevance to the issues framed in the suit but they are admissible in cross examination to test his veracity or credibility. Then section 155. The credit of a witness may be impeached the following ways by the adverse party or if they consent to the court by the party who has seen by the evidence of persons who testify that they from their knowledge of the witness believe him to be unworthy of credit. You are convicted in a particular case. There is a charge against you of committing an offense involving moral torpedo something of the kind by proof that the witness has been bribed or has accepted the offer of a bribe or has issued any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted. What I am trying to impress upon you is those certain questions may not be relevant to the issues framed in the suit. They become admissible in evidence during cross examination to test the veracity of a witness or his credibility or to injure his character. It is in this background see the second proviso to rule one of order again provided also that the interrogatories which do not relate to any matter any question in that suit shall be deemed irrelevant. As far as interrogatories under order 11 rule 1 are concerned you can't put interrogatories which are not relevant to the issues framed in the suit but they may be admissible in the oral cross examination under the relevant provisions of the evidence set which I pointed out. Then rule two particular interrogatories to be submitted on an application for leave to deliver interrogatories therefore a written application is contemplated under order 11 rule 1. The particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the court so you can't just file an application saying I may be permitted to deliver interrogatories I will deliver them at a later date the application should be accompanied by the interrogatories shall be submitted to the court and that court shall decide within seven days from the date of filing of the set application. In deciding upon such application the court shall take into account any offer which may be made to the party sought to be interrogated to deliver particulars or to make admissions or to produce documents relating to the matters in question or any of them and leave shall be given as to such only of the interrogatories submitted as the court shall consider necessary Python for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving cash. Let us take a case where a bank has advanced the loan the plaintiff bank files a suit for recovery of the loan advanced and every defendant takes pride and pleasure in denying every government made in the plaint. It used to be said jokingly at one point of time that the plaintiff is not a nationalized bank at all and then the usual thing that the manager who has presented the complaint does not have authority to do so he was never the manager loan is denied if the court before frames the issues examines the defendant and order 10 it would be revealed that the it would be revealed to the court that he did borrow money from the plaintiff bank but he what he wants is some reduction in the interest something of that type. Similarly when interrogatories are delivered stars can be saved. Otherwise what happens is if he has denied the execution of the loan documents loan is given in Bangalore. The manager who was present in Bangalore at the time the loan was advanced he is now working in Guwahati all the way from Guwahati to Bangalore only to prove the execution of the loan documents by the defendant experience has shown that such suits are generally decreed. Who would incur costs it is the defendant who intends costs therefore my request to the advocates appearing for the defendants particularly in bansuit seas please do not take a defense which the defendant has not stated. Ask him you first deliver interrogatories to your client orally at see whether he has really borrowed the loan let the written statement be a true reflection of the standard of the defendant and not of the counsel thereby you will be saving costs. So supposing there is a general denial of everything nothing prevents the plaintiff from making use of the provisions of order 11 deliver interrogatories and they do on such and such a day apply to the plaintiff bank for loan is it was not a sum of rupees 25 lakh sanctioned to you was not the loan borrowed for running an industry was not the loan borrowed for a digital journal purpose such interrogaries would be delivered if the answers to them are in the affirmative. Plaintiff would be relieved of proving the loan transaction itself therefore plaintiff is well advised in such suits to deliver interrogatories. We will take a second case of course participants may find fault or boring to hear always from me saying giving examples of a suit for specific performance and partition but they are the best examples to understand things clearly. In a suit for specific performance there is a denial of the execution of the agreement of sale something else is pleaded then it is also said the time was of the essence of the contract plaintiff did not come forward to get the document executed in time he did not pay the balance sale consideration and all that. Delivery interrogatories you admit the execution of the agreement do you admit the signature on the agreement of sale it is quite possible a true defendant assisted by a consensus counsel may admit it during the course of interrogatories that saves both the parties of letting in oral evidence 15 days back when I had a session on admissions and denials I had taken you to the provisions of section 58 of the evidence that and told you that answers to interrogatories delivered under order 11 are judicial admissions which need not be proved I will be telling it again later today. This is how the interrogary should be or to make admissions or to produce documents relating to the matter any question or any of them and you shall be given to such only of the interrogaries submitted to the court as the court shall consider necessary for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving cars. Again I repeat interrogatories should be relevant to the issues framed in the suit merely because those interrogatories would be admissible in evidence during oral cross-examination they cannot be delivered as interrogatories. Then cars of interrogatories in adjusting the process of the suit inquiry shall at the instance of any party we made here as a inquiry shall at the instance of any party we made into the propriety of exhibiting such interrogatories and if it is in the opinion of the taxing officer or the court either with or without application for inquiry that such interrogatories have been exhibited unreasonably facetiously or at improper length cars occasioned by the set interrogatories and the answers there too shall be paid in any event by the party in defense. So the interrogatories are totally irrelevant frivolous cars can also be imposed. Rule four interrogatories shall be in form number two in appended C with such variations as circumstances may require then they go to form number two. I just want to tell the junior members if you read the various forms in the appendix given to the civil procedure code you will understand the rule better particularly when you go through the provisions of order 21 CPC related to the execution or 34 suits relate into mortgage more than the main provisions the forms would tell you what the rule tells. So it says it shall be in form number two in appended C what is it form number two in appended C. Interrogatories on behalf of the above named plaintiff or defendant for the examination of the above named defendant or plaintiff did not did not the defendant borrow money and did not you borrow money did not you do this suit for specific suit for partition he is not the sale dated so-and-so executed in the name of the fourth defendant did he not part with a sum of rupees 25 lakhs to the vendor supposing the plaintiff wants to deliver interrogatories to the defendant to show that it is a joint family property did not the family own ten acres of wetland was not that wetland for time was not the father a healthy and active man capable of working even at the age of 70 these these answers given to the interrogaries might tend to show that the property in question was purchased out of the joint family funds or they were the self acquisitions of that particular defendant so suits for recovery of money specific performance partition suits they are ideally meant for delivering gentrary price then let us go to the next rule rule five where any party to a suit is a corporation or a body of persons whether incorporated or not empowered by a lot to sue or be sued whether in its own name or in the name of any officer or other person any opposite party may apply for an order allowing him to deliver interrogaries to any member or officer of such corporation or body and an order may be made accordingly because in the case of this body incorporates a particular person or officer would be in charge of that section and he would be in a better position to answer the interrogate please deliver rule six any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant are not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage or the ground of privilege or any other ground application for temporary intention is pending issues are not in frame why you may say delivering interrogate please at this day answering interrogate please at this day may not arise because rule one says what may deliver in project is for the examination of what I mean I mean section 30 says at any stage it could be given then rule seven any interrogate please will be set aside on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or at satiastly or strut out on the ground that they are colleagues oppressive unnecessary or scandalous and any application for this purpose may be made within seven days after service of the interrogate please so under rule seven application has to be filed for setting aside the interrogate please rule eight interrogate please shall be answered by affidavit to be filed within 10 days or within such other time as the court may allow no else may kindly make a note of this so interrogate please we'll have to be in the forum open affidavit in forum number three in Appendix C forum number three answer to interrogate please the answer of the above interrogate the answer to the above name of defendants after the interrogate please for the examination by the above name to play into in answer to the set interrogate please id above name df make worth it is an affidavit and say as follows questions one and two enter answers to interrogate please in paragraphs number consecutively three i object to answer the interrogate please number on the ground whatever is out irrelevant through a less scandalous satiast or whatever is available then rule ten no exceptions shall be taken to any affidavit in answer but the sufficiency otherwise the very such affidavit objected to the sufficient shall be determined by the court it is for the court to decide whether the affidavit is proper or not rule eleven where any person interrogated omits to answer or answers insufficiently the party interrogating may apply to the court for an order requiring him to answer or to answer further as the case may be and an order may be made requiring him to answer or to answer further either by affidavit or by viva osi examination as the court may direct let me just to digress here when such a situation arises in a particular place where I was working a suit had been filed by ban for recovery of flow the defendant had taken several contention one of them related to the trade of interest the high court of karnataka had been held that whenever there is a variation in the rate of interest consequent upon the reserve bank of india vary in the rate of interest the borrower that is the defendant should be put on notice otherwise the plaintiff that would not be entitled to recover interest at the very rate the interest which was prevailing as on the date of the load alone the plaintiff is entitled of course the judgment of the karnataka high court was reversed by the supreme court saying that in the low net remand itself there would be a class that the defendant is agreeable to pay interest at a rate varying from time to time since the law then as far as the state of karnataka before the supreme court reversed this judgment was defendant could plead that he had no notice of the variation of the rate of interest therefore the defendant's counsel every learned senior member of the bar on the civil side he delivered in trajectories what was the rate of load prevailing on the date of rate of rate of interest prevailing on the date of load when it was subsequently enhanced what was the rate of interest plaintiff lawyer was appearing only for banks not all that well versed he took strong objection to this and i knew the purpose behind the defendant lawyer asking these questions then he gave some answers insufficiently widely they are all matters of thought they are available in the agreement agreement only says the rate of interest prevailing on the date of load subsequent variation is not known so these are situations where further interjections will be delivered or the court may direct the party to give additional answers then here with regard to discovery and interrogation the provisions are from order 11 rule 1 to rule 11 then as a 2021 and 22 with regard to inspection of documents it is rule 12 to 22 this 2021 and 22 are common to both discovery and inspection so rules 1 to 11 are provisions relating to discovery and interrogation we will go to rule 20 and then go to rule 12 when we take up inspection of the documents we will go to rule 20 now premature discovery where the party from whom discovery of any kind of inspection is sought objects to the same or any part thereof the court may have satisfied that the right to the discovery or inspection sought depends on the determination of any issue or question in dispute in the suit or that for any other reason it is desirable that any issue or question in dispute in the suit should be determined before deciding upon the right to the discovery or inspection order that set issue or question be determined first and reserve the question as to the discovery or inspection maybe such an issue we have to be tried preliminary and thereafter an order could be passed rule 21 is very important non-compliance with the order for discovery parties cannot take this lightly interrogaries are delivered the court directs the party to answer the interrogaries the party fails to do it what is its consequence where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogaries or for discovery or inspection of documents he shall if a plaintiff be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution and if a defendant to have his defense if finished struck out shall be liable it is not that the court may dismiss and to be placed in the same position as if they had not defended that is practically it will be placed the expert and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the court for an order to the defendant and an order may be made on such application methodically have to notice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being held of course despite the strong language of rule 21 the supreme court has cautioned people be slow to invoke section rule 21 because it will have serious consequences I will give the ruling a little later then where an order is made under sub rule one dismissing any suit the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit and the same cause of action so lawyers will have to be extremely careful here do not take an order passed by the court asking you to deliver interrogaries lightly if you do not do it the consequence would be the suit has to be dismissed by the court and the dismissal will prevent you from filing a fresh suit in respect to the same cause of action then rule 22 any party may at the trial of a suit use in evidence anyone or more of the answers or any part of an answer of the opposite party to interrogaries without putting in the others or the whole of such answer provided always that in such case the court may look at the whole of the answers and if it shall be of opinion that any others of them are so connected with those put in that the last mentioned answers ought not to be used without them it may direct them to be put in plaintiff or defendant may put in only some part of the interrogate some part of the answers which are convenient to them it is permitted but if the court thinks that the entire thing needs to be brought on the top it should be brought on the top I have personally a quarrel with the rule 22 the reason is this the very object of delivering interrogaries is to shorten the pace of trial as I said on the last occasion and as I would be again telling by reading sartar on evidence that answers to interrogaries delivered under order 11 are judicial admissions covered by section 58 of the evidence act judicial admissions need not be proved at all then it's already on rata when interrogate me sir deliver and the party has given answers they really fail to understand as to why the plaintiff or the defendant who relies upon that answers has to put in evidence I think any participant might throw some light on rule 22 I'm either to hear him or her but I personally feel that rule 22 takes away the entire object of order 11 all right then order applies to minors now let me also deal with the provisions related to inspection of documents and then go to some case law and thereafter the commercial courts act the provisions relating to inspection of documents are found in rules 13 I mean rule 12 to 22 rule 12 application for discovery of documents any party may without filing any effort of it apply to the court for an order directing any other party to any suit to make discovery I do not know the position elsewhere in the country in karnataka we have the karnataka civil rules of practice which requires an affidavit or a memorandum of facts in certain situations to be filed along with the literal acutery application but order 11 rule 12 says that even without an app leave even without an affidavit an application could be made under order 11 rule 12 any party may without filing any effort of it apply to the court for an order directing any other party to any suit to make the discovery and vote or the documents which are or have been in his possession or power discovery on vote of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power relating to any matter in question they are now a suit for partition is fight defendants set up a prior partition they say that the plaintiff being the literate or educated among the sharers retains the original partition deal making a representation to others that he would get the kata checked the original is with him then any party may without filing any effort of it apply to the court for an order directing any other party to any suit to make discovery and vote of the documents the plaintiff may be caught upon to say was there such a document the registered partition need or whatever it is do have its position on hearing the such application the court may either refuse or adjourn the same may either refuse or adjourn the same if satisfied that such discovery is not necessary or not necessary at that stage of the suit are made such order either generally are limited to certain classes of documents as may its discretion be thought fit provided that the discovery shall not be ordered when and so far as the court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving cash so there's a rider in all these provisions ultimately it boils down to this whenever a document is sought to be produced or whenever an interrogator is delivered for to answer that it should relate to the issues frame that suit that affidavit of documents rule 13 the affidavit to be made by a party against whom such order as is mentioned the last preceding rule has been made shall specify which if any of the documents here in there in mention he updates to produce and it shall be in forum number five in appendix C with such variations as the circumstances may require let us go to forum number five affidavit has two documents ID above name defendant make oath and say as follows I have in my position or power the documents related to the matters in question in this suit set forth in the first and second parts of the first schedule here to I update to produce the set document set forth in second part of the first schedule here to state the grounds of objection why you are not producing will have to be stated you can't say that you are irrelevant because the court has already passed an order on the ground that they are relevant I have had but have not now in any position or power the documents related to the matters in question in this suit set forth in the second schedule here to see how beautiful the language I have had at one point of time I had those documents but not now in my position or power the documents related to the matters in question in this suit set forth in the second schedule here to the last mentioned documents were lost in my position or power on state when and what has become of them and in whose position they have now according to the best of my knowledge information and belief I have not now I never had in my position custody or power or in the position to study our power of a leader or agent or in the position to study our power of any other person on be on any behalf any account book about voucher receipt letter number random paper or writing or any copy of or extract from any such document or any other document whatsoever related to the matters in question in this suit or any of them are within any entry has been made related to such matters or any of them other than that I get sent the document set forth in this set first and second schedule there so detailed effort has to be paid which are those documents is prepared to produce if they are not with him why they are not with him all those things will have to be stated and rule 14 it shall be lawful for the court at any time during the pendency of any suit to order the production by any party they have to upon vote of such a good arguments in his position or power relating to any matter in question in such suit as the court shall think right and the court may deal with such documents and produced in such manner as shall appear just applications are frequently filed under all 11 rule 14 CPC seeking a direction to the opponent to produce documents I have no problem with that but when such documents are produced what is it that is required it shall be lawful for the court at any time during the pendency of any suit to order the production by any party there to upon vote he must say that these are the documents with me he must make that work and do it then after these documents are produced then question of inspection arises under rule 15 so there are two parts as I said one discovering certain facts through interrogaries by delivering interrogatees that is a questionnaire then calling upon the other side to produce documents for inspection this is discovery and inspection many loosely said discovery and interrogate is no discovery and interrogate is they go together it is production and inspection of documents rule 15 every party to a suit shall be entitled at or before the settlement of issue to give notice to any other party whose pleading or affidavits reference is made to any document or who has entered any document in any list connects to his pleadings to produce such document for the inspection of the party given such notice or of his pleader lawyers will kindly make use of this some document is referred to in the client something else is referred to in written statement he has not furnished copy and all that you have a provision make use of that every party to a suit shall be entitled at or before the settlement of issue to give notice to any other party whose pleading or affidavits reference is made to this notice is not outside the court through the court or who has entered any document in any list connects to his pleading to produce such document for the inspection of the party given such notice or of his pleader and to permit him or them to take copies thereof and any party not complying with such notice shall not afterwards be at liberty to put any such document in evidence on his behalf in such suit unless they shall satisfy the court that such document relates only to his own title he being a defendant in the suit or that he had some other cause or excuse with the court shall be sufficient for not complying with such notice in which case the court may allow the same to be put in evidence on such terms as to cause and otherwise then notice to produce it shall be informed number seven time for inspection the party to whom such notice is given shall within 10 days from the receipt of such notice deliver to the party given the same and notice stating the time within three days from the delivery of thereof at Victor at which the documents are such of them as he does not object to produce may be inspected at the office of the speeder not in the court or in the case of bankers books or other books of account or books in constant use for the purposes of any trade or business at their usual place of the study and stating which any of the documents he objects to produce and on what grounds such notice shall be informed number eight then order for production rule 80 then the party served with the notice in the rule 15 omits to give such notice of a time for inspection or updates to give inspection or offers inspection otherwise than at the office of the speeder the court may on the application of the party desiring it make an order for inspection in such place and in such manner as it may be fit well the court has a description all right produce it to the court at him inspect there provided that the order shall not be made when and so far as the court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fair before everything it is stated if the documents or questions are not relevant for the disposal this who the court shall not do it and if cost cannot be saved it shall not do it any application to inspect documents except such are as referred to in the breedings particulars or affidavit so the party and the application is made and disclosed in his affidavit of documents shall be founded upon an affidavit showing of what documents inspection is sought that the party applying is entitled to inspect them and that they are in the position of power of the other party the court shall not make such order for inspection of such documents when and so far as the court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs then rule 19 where inspection of any business books is applied for the court may fit things fit instead of ordering inspection of the original books order a copy of any entries there into be furnished and verified by the affidavit of some person who has examined the copy with the original entries and such affidavit shall state whether or not there are in the original book and what erasures inter-lineations or alterations provided that notwithstanding that such copy has been supplied the court may order inspection of the book from which the party from which the copy was made where an application for an order for inspection where on an application for an order for inspection privilege is climbed for any document it shall be lawful for the court to inspect the document for the purpose of deciding as to the validity of the claim the court may inspect the document and decide whether any privilege is attached to it the court may on the application of any party to your suit at any time and whether the affidavit of the document shall or shall not have already been order or may make an order requiring any other party to state by affidavit whether by anyone or more of specific documents to be specified so they are all matter for detail you see there is one provision which says that if the documents are not produced in answer to I mean in compliance with the direction being given by the court the party is precluded from producing at a later stage without the leave the court let me search that provision ah yes rule 15 every party to a suit shall be entitled at or before the settlement of issue to give notice to any other party in whose pleadings are affidavit its reference is made to any document or was entered in a document in any list attached to his pleadings to produce such document for the inspection of the party in such opinion or of his pleader and to permit him or them to take copies thereof and any party not complying with such notice shall not afterwards be at liberty to put any such document in evidence on his behalf in such suit unless they shall satisfy the court that such document relates only to his own title he being a defendant to the suit or that he had some other class or excuse which the court shall be sufficient for not complying so in such an event the application for production will have to be under order 11 rule 15 setting out the reasons not our order 7 rule 14 or order 8 rule 1 a they relate to a different state and have something more to tell about order 7 rule 14 and order 8 rule 1 a when I take you to the provisions of the commercial courts act now ultimately what is the purpose of this discovery as I said to minimize oral evidence this can be well made use of in suits based on attempts entries in shop goods a wholesale dealer would have supplied goods on credit to a retail dealer or number of occasions entries would have been made the retailer may admit certain things may deny certain things delivery in tragedy if you admit certain transactions to that extent the burden of proving that particular transaction is discharged this is the object behind delivery in tragedy is now I will read out to you a passage from Sarkar CPC on the scope of order 11 Sarkar CPC volume 1 11th edition 11th edition of Sarkar CPC volume 1 page 13 23 and 13 24 scope and application many of the rules in this order relating to discovery and inspection follow English order 31 by discovery a party is enabled to obtain from his opponent material facts of information as to documents or admissions which will support his own or damage his opponent's case defendant in a partition suit wants to play tip to state whether the particular sale deed is in the name of such and such a defendant whether he had enough money to win or he applied somewhere was he doing business if these answers are given to that extent his burden gets reduced though the nature of each party's case is set out in the plaint and written statement they may not sufficiently disclose their respective cases this is the experience of the bench in the park something is stated particularly in the written statement the plaintiff lawyer will not be knowing what is actually admitted by the defendant less said about the fate of the judicial officers in the if the readings are such which are great the machinery provided in this order may be availed of with the leave of the court for the elicitation of additional materials for better preparation of a case before it is brought to trial and to shorten its duration and minimize crush if certain things are admitted or answer when interrogaries are delivered to that extent the plaintiff or the defendant need not produce any evidence this is the object behind delivering interrogate please for this purpose interrogate please may be submitted for answer by the opponent and discovery of documents to be asked for in determining what interrogate please should be allowed regard should be had to order 11 rule to that is it says it should not be frivolous with satious and other things proceeding further the author refers to some observations made by the chief justice of Allah the machinery of discovery if rightly understood mark those words at least I have marked them in my book if rightly understood and utilized extracts from either side all the material documents in his possession and with the aid of inspection and the supply of copies enables both sides to go to trial fully equipped with all the relevant documents relied upon by either party nearly all questions relating to the relevance of the documents have already be determined in chambers tabbers before the trial we get pads within the knowledge of one party but unknown to the other have been disclosed and elucidated by admissions in interrogatories thus nearly all the thoughts are on the table and the risk of surprise is reduced to a minimum when I was a junior judicial officer in Mysore there was a case where application was filed for delivery of interrogatories of course I was still a junior I had to go through these provisions and I wrote the order by hand on that particular day when I was in the house there was no electric supply also the my landlady in whose room I was staying as a tenant had given me a lamp those days and I had put that lamp on my table and wrote the order I still remember that of course as a junior I felt this ultimately I could know what the object behind this is so the object is clearly disclosed then on the last occasion I had taken you through a passage from Sartor's dividends which I do it again I had told you on the last occasion and perhaps on an earlier occasion also when I spoke about some other aspects the difference between judicial admissions and evidentiary admissions judicial evidentiary admissions are those contained in sections 70 into 21 they should be brought on record through the medium of evidence therefore they are called evidentiary admissions you can't ask the court to go through them on it soon judicial admissions doubled by section 58 are admissions in record I will read section 58 for refreshing the memory of those who are present on the last occasion to bring to the notice of those who are not present and to refresh my own memory section 58 no fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties there too are the agents agree to admit at the hearing or which before the hearing they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings no fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties there to agree to admit at the hearing as I told on the last occasion we have not reached a stage where the parties agree to admit something at the time of hearing they may at best agree to drag on the matter for some time beyond that I don't think that they agree to admit anything at the hearing then or which before the hearing they agree or which by any rule of pleading in force or rate rule three speeds of specific denial or rate rule for evasive denial then or rate rule for agencies deniable to be specific otherwise it is deemed to have been admitted therefore if something is not denied in written statement it is deemed to be admitted and such a thing need not be proved different ends in a suit for admit in a suit for partition admit the nature of the properties they admit it is giant property or giant family property or whatever it is there is no need for the plaintiffs to prove the nature of the properties plaintiff only has to concentrate on the case of the defendants whether there is a prior partition or any of the items is their self-adquisitions or if a will is set up to have been challenge that will I think beyond that provided that the court may in its decision require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise done by such admission you have a similar proviso attached to order a rule five despite such admission the court can call upon this now sartar in his evidence that commentary today it is said 16th edition volume one this is what sartar says admissions by parties oral or documentary to any person before the suit that is out of court have been dealt with in section 17 etc such admissions are tendered as evidence while admissions for purposes of trials dispense with proof of particular facts this section that is 58 deals with admissions during trial that is utter before the hearing proof of such facts is dispensed with for the simple reason that the facts admitted require no proof they are known as judicial admissions or stipulations dispensing with proof it is a substitute for evidence it is a substitute for evidence and admission in this sense is a formal act done in the course of judicial proceedings therefore they are called judicial admissions which waves or dispenses with the formal act of which ways or dispenses with the production of evidence by considering for the purposes of litigation that the proposition of the fact alleged by the opponent is true admissions for purposes of trial are not generally receivable in other proceedings then admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions so admissions played in pleadings or judicial admissions admissible under section 58 made by the parties or their agents actor before the hearing of this case standard a higher footing than evidentiary admissions this is what i told the audience of the last occasion defendants have admitted in the written statement that certain items of the plain schedule are the giant family properties where is the point in again asking them in the witness box is the written statement filed by you did your lawyer draft written statement at your instructions have you stated so in the written statement it is there it is an admission even if on both the defendants say a different answer the court cannot go by that the court is bound by the judicial admission made in the written statement defendant is bound by that the former class of admissions are fully binding on the parties that made them and constitute a waiver of proof defendant has admitted the agreement of sale execution he pleads that it was a document taken by the plaintiff as a security for the loan advanced by him where is any need for the plaintiff to prove the execution of the document so there is no need to release the plaintiff or release the party of proving it they by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights to the parties on the other hand evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence are by themselves not conclusive they can be shown to be wrong on the last occasion i had given some judgments to the supreme court also on this point then in the context of order 11 which we are discussing today this is what the learned author says admissions for the purpose of trial that is judicial admissions be considered has been made on the radar which are actual that is either on the pleadings or rate rule 5 or in answer to interrogate these are 11 to 22 implied from the pleadings or rate rule 3 4 5 between the parties or by agreement in writing before the hearing or by notice under order 12 so law has recognized answers to interrogate these as judicial admissions covered by section 58 of the evidence said though section 58 does not specifically say that answer to an interrogate rate is judicial admission who also have interpreted like that therefore i am personally of the view that rule 22 of order 11 unnecessarily makes the party to put those answers in evidence how to reconcile this to me it appears those answers also can be exhibited or something i don't think that it is really required because it's a part of the record as i said someone amongst the participants may throw better light on that before it becomes dark then we will deal with i will i will take you through some of the important decisions on this point participants in this webinar and two or three judicial officers who i find here i have heard me in the judicial academy a number of partitions i have found me always citing decisions of our high court or the supreme court they also know that on occasions i have made a conscious departure from my proclaimed stand today i'm making it the we have an earlier decision of the cult of hypo i have reason to fight it i lr 1940 cult of 504 i lr 1940 cult of 504 gobin the mohan rail gobin mohan rail versus madhneeram bangur company bangur and company it is to be observed that the effect of rule 12 of order 11 is considerably wider than that of order 13 rule 1 of the code it is quite inconceivable that a party may only wish to rely on a limited number of documents related to the matter in this view and which happened to be dispossession or power and under the provisions of order 13 rule 1 he will only be required to produce it at the first hearing those documents which he himself may consider of course order 13 rule 1 has also undergone an amendment in 1999 scratch 2002 he will only be required to produce at the first hearing those documents which he himself may consider requisite for his own purpose unless the court has expressly directed the production of any particular document under all relevant rule 12 on the other hand the parties may apply for the discovery of all documents of any description which have any bearing on the matter in this too and if delivery is if discovery is order the effort of it to the documents must contain a complete list of all documents related to the matter in question whether a part agents to discovery has been ordered intense to rely on them or not the intention of the legislature in enacting these provisions seems to have been to afford facilities to a party to the suit in a proper case to establish his own case by having access to his opponents documents to establish his own case don't say plaintiff has come to the court he has to stand on his legs no there is a departure here as I jokingly say there are occasions when the plaintiff can also sit and relax when the defendant is expected to stand on his legs in other words as one party to a suit is permitted to prove his case out of the mouth of his opponent see how beautiful it is put in other words as one party to a suit is permitted to prove his case out of the mouth of his opponent by means of questions put in cross examination so also may he seek to establish his case by the process of discovery interrogaries and admissions for which provisions are made in orders 11 and 12 of the civil procedure go the right to obtain discovery of an adversaries documents is a very wide one and is not limited merely to those documents it may be held to be admissible in evidence when the suit is ultimately tried the law this point was clearly stated by justice Brett in the case of some case I desire to give as large an interpretation as I can to the words of the rule a document relating to any matter in question the action I think it obvious from the use of the terms that the documents to be produced are not confined to those which would be evidence either to prove or disprove any mattering question in these action the doctrine seems to me to go farther than that and to go as far as the principle which I am about to lay down it seems to me that every document relates to the matter in question the section which not only would be evidence upon any issue but also which it is reasonable to suppose contains information which may not be must which may not which must either directly or indirectly enable the party requiring the effort of it either to advance his own case or damage the case of the adversary then though I know that the decision that I am now citing is the decision of the Karnataka High Court well participants may keep in view the law laid down by our High Court also ILR 1982 Karnataka 1 by 2 ILR 1982 Karnataka 1 by 2 Annaji Babaji Bosley Annaji Babaji Bosley versus Messers Patson agencies after extracting rule 14 of order 11 this is what the 11 and yet says from the aforesaid rule it is clear that it is open for the court to make an order for the production of documents at any time during the pendency of the suit no doubt exercise of the power under rule 14 is discretionary and is subject to two conditions being satisfied the documents the production of which is sought for must be in the possession or power of the party against whom the direction is sought for and the documents must relate to the controversy involved in the suit it need not be pointed out that the discretion must be exercised initially and not arbitrarily then you may refer to 1972 volume 2 SCC 427 1972 volume 2 SCC 427 say ML sat versus RP Thakur ML sat versus RP Thakur when the court makes an order for the discovery under the rule the opposite party is bound to make an affidavit of documents and if he fails to do so he will be subject to the penalty specified in rule 21 an affidavit of document shall set forth all the documents which are or have been in his possession or power relate into the matter in questioning the proceedings and as to the documents which are not but have been in his possession or power but as to the documents which are not but have been in his possession or power he will state what has become of them and in whose position they are in order that the opposite party will be enabled to get production from the persons who have process who have possession of them after he has disclosed the documents by the affidavit he will be required to produce for inspection such as the documents as he is in his possession of and as are relevant odd relevant rule 13 provides that every affidavit of the document should specify which of the documents they are in set for well every document which will throw any light on the case is a document relating to the matter and dispute in the proceedings though it might not be admissible in evidence for want of stamp duty for want of registration for whatever reason it is in other words a document might be inadmissible in evidence yet it might untie information which may either directly or indirectly enable the parties hit in discovery either to advance his case or damage the adversary's case or it may lead to a trial of inquiry which may have either of these two consequences and a suit for partition defendants in the written statement say that there are a few more properties belonging to the family and the plaintiffs deliberately has not included them of course they also played a fair partition plaintiff says that there is self-adquisitions and therefore he has not included them in this partition suit in that partition deed which is turned unregistered let us forget about it which is produced by the defendants let us state it as unregistered it may not be admitted in evidence to prove a partition but in that unregistered partition to which the plaintiff is also a party there is a recital which says that these properties which are in the name of the plaintiff are also joint family properties or they are thrown into the joint family hot spot please understand this this unregistered partition deed under which the division has taken place is inadmissible in evidence to prove the partition but under order 11 if this document this document could be relied upon to show that the plaintiff at one point of time admitted that there were other properties though purchased in his name or purchased from out of joint family funds are thrown into the joint family hot spot so the document may be inadmissible in evidence but under order 11 they may throw some light on the controversy in this suit this is how you will have to understand this in other words the document might be inadmissible in evidence yet it may contain information it may either directly or indirectly enable the parties seek in discovery either to advance this case or damage the adversary's case or it may lead to a trial of inquiry which may have either of these two consequences the word document in this context includes anything that is written or printed no matter what the material may be upon which the writing or permitting is inserted or printed then we have this famous Rajanarayan versus Smriti Indira Gandhi Indira Nehru Gandhi's case 1972 3 SCC 1972 3 SCC 850 1972 3 SCC 850 Rajanarayan versus Indira Gandhi the case changed the political destiny of the country in 70s questions that may be relevant during cross examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogaries the only questions that are relevant as interrogaries are those relating to any matters in question the interrogaries served must have reasonable close connection with the matters in question viewed thus interrogaries 1 to 18 as well as 31 must be held to be irrelevant then we have 1992 I'm sorry 1978 4 SCC 188 1978 4 SCC 188 Babbar suing machine company Babbar suing machine company versus fellow North Mahajan 1978 4 SCC 188 the principal governing reports exercise of its discretion under order 11 rule 21 that is suit can be dismissed defense can be struck off as already stated is that it is only when the default is willful and as a last resort that the court should dismiss the suit or strike out the defense when the party is guilty of such condemnation as conduct or there is a willful attempt to decide the order of the court that the trial of the suit is arrested it was further content contented that the high court was in error in observing that in view of the clear language of part 11 rule 21 the defendant has no right to cross its hand in the plaintiff's witness the producer of order 11 rule 21 shows that where a defense defense is to be struck off in the circumstances mentioned therein the order would be that the defendant be placed in the same position as if he has not defended this indicates that once the defense is struck off under order 11 rule 21 the position would be that as if the defendant had not defended and accordingly the suit would proceed it's party in Sanderabh Singh versus election tribunal it was held that is the court proceeds it's part against the defendant under order 9 rule 21 the defendant is still entitled then we have 1992 to SCC 61 to 1992 to SCC 61 to Vasanath Oda versus Dr. SB Amar Che the court therefore is clearly approved and it shall be lawful for it to order the production by any party to the suit such documents in his possession or power as relate to any matter in question the suit provided that the court shall think right that the production of the documents are necessary to decide the matter in question the court also has been given power to deal with the documents and produced in such manner as it shall appear just therefore the power to order production of documents is coupled with discretion to examine the expediency justness and the relevancy of the documents as to the matter in question these are 11 considerations if the court shall have to adhere to and wait before deciding to summoning the documents in possession of the party to the election petition one question might come to your mind has to why have started from 1940 and ended with 1992 though 30 years since then have passed the reason is obvious the provisions of order 11 CPC are hardly involved therefore there is no occasion for the superior courts to lay down the law lot of my knowledge has been beautifully laid down in these earlier decisions I only suggest that the end lawyers make a new beginning make use of these provisions enlighten the seniors also that said provisions exist in the court of seal procedure and they are not extinct let us make a new beginning of course though section 30 empowers a judicial officer to do Suomoto well we can imagine the consequences of that it may be a little difficult but counsel will do well to minimize oral evidence to take the records to the provisions of order 11 CPC unless the council invoke it obviously the parties will not be knowing about the existence of such a provision course it will be difficult for the court on its own to discover anything first lawyers will have to discover the existence of these provisions then then allow the then make the judges know about them then they will also soon discover before answering your questions answering your interrogaries I would like to refer to the provisions of the commercial courts act which has practically substituted order 11 on some rotation I had told that the commercial courts have not some rotation in the previous occasion itself that the commercial course act is in two parts one part rating two the commercial courts as such the other part has amended the court of seal procedure in its functioning of the commercial courts so we have two CPCs one CPC for the normal courts another CPC for commercial courts but not all provisions of the CPC are taken away for commercial courts they still exist there are certain provisions of the court of seal procedure which have been amended substituted inserted by the commercial courts act we have a schedule to the commercial courts act the schedule says that we will have to refer to section 16 of the commercial courts act so we will refer to it section 16 amendments to the court of seal procedure in its application to commercial disputes the provisions of the court of seal procedure shall in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value stand amended in the manner as specified in the schedule the commercial division and commercial court shall follow the provisions of the court of seal procedure as amended by this act so if any provision of the CPC is amended by the commercial courts act then the commercial courts will follow those provisions as amended in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value where any provision of any rule of the jurisdictional high court or any amendment to the court of seal procedure by the state government is in contact with the provisions of CPC the provisions of the court of seal procedure as amended by this act shall prevail so schedule says C section 16 certain provisions of the court of seal procedure are amended there in the context of order 11 this is what it says order 11 of the court for order 11 of the court the following order shall be substituted it is held by the supreme court in some decision in 50s that whenever a provision is substituted the effect is that the parent provision no longer exists nobody is required to look into the world provision as if the parliament or the legislature has put the new provision in incumbent that is they are the words used by the supreme court well there may be some exceptions to that saying you'll have to look at the object of the enactment and all that we have conflict in judgments great debate when section six of the hindu succession act came to be amended some provision substituted inserted and all that I am not on that let us go by the first principle order 11 is substituted therefore whatever I have set up order 11 so far relates to regular course not dealing with commercial disputes the provisions of order 11 as substituted by the commercial court set will apply to cases before the commercial court which are those relevant provisions disclosure and discovery of documents order 11 rule 1 you keep cpc as amended by the commercial court set and that would disclose to you and you will discover that there is a sea change there let me myself do it first take order 11 rule 1 as it is order 11 rule 1 regular cpc in any suit the plaintiff or the defendant by leo decode deliver intra-retreats what is this rule 1 of order 11 as amended by the commercial court set say plaintiff shall file a list of all documents and photo copies of all documents in its possession power possession controller custody pertaining to the suit along with the plane including the documents referred to and relied on by the plaintiff documents relating to any matter in question in the proceedings then see nothing in this rule shall apply to documents produced by plaintiffs and relevant to only for the cross examination of the defendant's witnesses in answer to any case set up by the defendant subsequently filing of the plaintiff handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory you will have to refresh your memory by referring to world order 13 rules 1 and 2 cpc provisions of order 7 rule 14 order 7 rule 14 under order 8 rule 1 a as they exist subsequent to the amendment brought in 2002 are somewhat incorporated in order 11 rule 1 the effect is this those documents will have to be set out and will have to be produced then see order 11 rule 1 sub rule 3 the plaint shall contain a declaration and vote from the plaintiff that all documents in the power possession controller custody of the plaintiff pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by him have been disclosed and copies thereof unhook the plane and that the plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power possession controller custody a declaration on vote under this sub rule shall be contained in the statement of truth as set out in the appendix we have a statement of truth i so and so the defendant do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under and the party in the above set suit and competent to swear to the defendant i'm sufficiently conversant to the facts of the case and have also examined all 11 documents and records in relation there too i say that the statements made in paragraphs are true to my knowledge and statements made in such and such a paragraphs are based on information received which i believe to be correct and statements made in paragraphs who are based on legal advice i say that there is no false statement or concealment i say that all documents in my possession power controller custody pertaining to the facts have been disclosed i say that i am aware that for any false statement or concealment i shall be liable for action taken against me and i will laugh for the time being enforced so when lawyers deal with a commercial court matter this statement of truth will have to be in the form given in appendix number one which i have read in the case of urgent filings the plaintiff may seek to live to rely on additional documents as part of the above declaration shall file such additional documents in court within 30 days of filing this suit along with the declaration on vote that the plaintiff has produced all documents in its power possession controller custody pertaining to the facts and circumstances of proceeding initiated by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power possession control or the study see sub rule 5 please do full attention to what i am reading the plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents whichever in the plaintiff's power possession control or custody are not disclosed along with the plaint or within the extended period set out about save and accept by leave of the court and such a leave shall be granted only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable costs to not simply say that they were misclad on the last date of hearing i could not be present nothing of that kind only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable costs for non-disclosure along with the plaint then with regard to documents to be filed by the defendants also we have sub rule 7 similar to sub rule 1 then again it says even for the defendant to produce documents at a later state in the commercial court he has to establish reasonable costs for non-disclosure along with written statement then we have ruled to discovery by interrogaries then i don't propose to read these things because i'm not very sure how many of you have a where at the commercial court side with you otherwise it makes very laborious reading and laborious hearing also you can't just remember what i tell what i am trying to impress upon you is the provisions of order 11 cpc have been drastically amended substituted by a new order 11 the consequences are very serious if they are not produced the documents are not produced you cannot later produce them unless you establish a reasonable cost for its earlier non-production and then there's a provision for inspection inspection will have to be completed within 30 days then we have admission and denial of documents each rule 4 order 11 rule 4 each party shall submit a statement of admissions or denials of all documents disclosed and of which inspection has been completed within 15 days of the completion of inspection or any later date as fixed by the court the statement of admissions and denials shall set out explicitly whether such party was admitting or denying the correctness of contents of a document existence of a document execution of a document issuance or receipt of a document trusted effort document you can't make a way that mission or denial are you admitting the content are you admitting the existence of the document are you admitting the execution of the document these things will have to be stated then again production of documents electronic records and then it is stated for avoidance of doubt rule 7 of order 11 for avoidance of doubt it is hereby clarified i am not clarifying cpc amendment itself clarifies that that order 13 rule 1 order 7 rule 14 under order 8 rule 1 a shall not apply to suits or applications before the commercial divisions of the high court or commercial courts ultimately it boils down to this those of you who are practicing in the commercial courts or who intend to practice there or who may have an occasion to practice there will have to equip yourself with the provisions of the civil procedure court as amended by the commercial courts act you can't take things casually or leisurely certain timelines of which even i can't reproduce them i can't remember the various timelines i have no i don't expect you to do it don't trust your memory read the provisions as an indication arises because it has undergone a lot of amendment so you can't take the things casually the consequences are very severe this is all what i wanted to disclose after my discovery of the subject now it is open to you to interrogate me deliver interrogaries inspect whether i have and you will have an occasion to i will have an occasion to inspect myself whether i have properly delivered thank you questions are welcome my question in this is the property's ancestral property and four sons and two daughters are here but after the death of the father it's a big question i can read it or you can also read it from the chat that's the name recorded sir my question is this the property's ancestral property and four sons and two daughters are yes but after the death of father the first son in thalam the first son's name come on record by way of mutation in thalam and in other ways columns meanwhile the mutual see this really does not relate to anything relating to order 11 cbc it is a matter relating to the hindula and more particularly the amendment brought to the civil procedure for i don't think that this has any relevance to the question anyway one thing i can tell mere entry in the mutation does not come for any right you will have to establish the major of the properties depending upon whether the properties are ancestral or self acquisitions either section six has amended and has expounded by vritha sharma next question i want to produce audio evidence which 65 b during cross examination of dw1 in civil case what provision and reason to submit well 65 b gets it clear and i must honestly confess that my own knowledge of 65 b of the evidence act is limited you can watch the session of uh you're not in the wrong can we have done the session on this not me at any rate my knowledge of 65 b is very limited no i'm saying you can watch that session what uh a question prior to that yes question dvd video evidence marked as exhibit want to cross opposition by dvd video evidence i want opposite party dw1 during cross examination to produce his band statement the paid receipts his tedious paid has created a fraudulent shielded well that can be done you will have to make an application satisfy the court about its relevancy certainly the court can order for production same provision hard 11 for rule 14 or something to carry out then the honorable p o is saying then defendant files written statement without any documents in suit or sale date cancellation on terms of fraud and misrepresentation no payment was done as shown in the illegal sale deed after eight years he produced a both as receipt after the death of the plaintiff and got it instantly marked in spite of objections there is no record of this receipt planned a written statement by fdavids the receipt admissible even though objected to by the other party on what's round it's marking was objected was it on the ground that the proper stamp duty had been had not been paid or what it is i need to know the ground on which the objection was raised and what is the order possible the court was it a considered order or it was simply said objections overruled and that means markets object to objection the question is not elaborate was it on the ground that the receipt was insufficiently spared well if in spite of it your objection is overruled section 35 of the probably corresponding provision of the stamp indian stamp at is 36 it would be a bar for that court to reopen this question one question which normally comes in a normal case wherein some people file a short reply saying that they're in that they're not responded to each pair of eyes what will be the effect they're off point is this under order 8 rule 5 as i said specifically not evasively the denial should be very specific it need not be an evasive denial because it is no denial at all in the eye of law therefore the denial will have to be very specific and i also told at the last occasion a statement is written statement that the defendant is not aware does not even amount to an implied denial and i also said without rigorous rule it has been explained by one of a very learned judges with another high court what is that without rigorous rule that only during the mediation proceedings or subconciliation proceedings it has lost its significance now yes sir those are the questions and thank you for sharing the insights and we are also thankful to koshik and his wife for sparing time on sunday rather than going going for roaming immediately after the marriage the entire beyond law cnc team coupled with the people who are watching it on the youtube facebook and on this group they're also thankful to the trio thank you sir thank you