M/S. KAPIL COREPACKS PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus SHRI HARBANS LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

M/S. KAPIL COREPACKS PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus SHRI HARBANS LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

Confrontation of only the signature/stamp portion of an unexhibited document by covering other parts is not permitted in examination under Order 10 Rule 2. The purported admission of signature does not amount to admission of execution of document. Answers given under Order 10 Rule 2 are not under oath and cannot be a basis for criminal prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and Section 195 IPC.

Parties
Appellants: M/S. Kapil Corepacks Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.; Respondents: Shri Harbans Lal (since deceased) through LRs.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of High Court in FAO (os) No. 16 of 2009
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Order 10 Rule 2 CPC, Admissions, Examination of Parties, Criminal Prosecution Under Section 340 Cr.p.c., Order 12 Rule 3 a CPC
Civil Procedure Order 10 Rule 2 CPC Admissions Examination of Parties Criminal Prosecution Under Section 340 Cr.p.c. Order 12 Rule 3 a CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S. Kapil Corepacks Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Appellants

Shri Harbans Lal (since deceased) through LRs.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of High Court in FAO (os) No. 16 of 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the scope and ambit of Order 10 Rule 2 CPC?
  2. 2 Whether the court could confront a defendant with only the signature portion of a disputed unexhibited document under Order 10 Rule 2?
  3. 3 Whether prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and Section 195 IPC could be initiated based on an answer given in an examination under Order 10 Rule 2?

Ratio Decidendi

Confrontation of only the signature/stamp portion of an unexhibited document by covering other parts is not permitted in examination under Order 10 Rule 2. The purported admission of signature does not amount to admission of execution of document. Answers given under Order 10 Rule 2 are not under oath and cannot be a basis for criminal prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and Section 195 IPC.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Division Bench dated 20.1.2009 and Single Judge dated 12.11.2008 set aside.
  • Matter for prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is dropped.