 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 27 Order XIII, rule 2 A provision has been added to exclude documents produced for cross-examination, etc., Cf. Order VII, rule 18(2). Order XIII, rule 5 The Bombay Amendment to Order XIII, rule 5 and Order VII, rule 17 provides for filing of translation of entries in other languages. See also Madhya Pradesh and Punjab Amendments to Order VII, rule 17; the latter provides for transliteration also. This is a matter for Civil Rules, and need not be incorporated in the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XIII, rule 7 The Madras Amendment prohibiting return of a document, etc., which has become void, has been noted. It is considered that the provision in Order XIII, rule 9(1), second proviso, should suffice for normal cases. Order XIII, rule 9 1. Under Order XIII, rule 9(1), where a person who has produced a document wants its return (before the suit is disposed of), the court may allow such return under the proviso, if he delivers to the proper officer a certified copy, etc. Now, when the document was produced by a witness, this rule creates difficulty, as he has also to deliver a certified copy (and there is no provision as to reimbursing him for its expenses). The Civil Justice Committee1 suggested that the party exhibiting the document should be required to pay the cost of preparing the copy, etc. 2. The problem has been tackled in different ways by local Amendments. The Madras Amendment empowers the court to require the party concerned to substitute a certified copy within a certain time, failing which the document is to be returned to the applicant. The Punjab Amendment provides, that the cost shall be recoverable from the party concerned. The Madhya Pradesh Amendment provides, that the court shall order the party concerned to pay the cost. 3. It is considered, that the best course would be to allow the witness himself the facility of putting in a simple copy; the copy can be compared, etc., and then the original returned2 Necessary change has been proposed. 1. Cf. Civil Justice Committee (1924-25), Report, pp. 564-565, para. 16. 2. Cf. Order 13, rule 5(3), as to account books. Order XIV, rule 1(5) 1. The examination of the parties which is referred to in Order XIV, rule 1 (5), appears to be the examination under Order X, rule 2. It is considered that this should be made clear. Necessary change has been proposed. 2. The framing of issues, it is felt, should take place after hearing the parties or pleaders. A provision to that effect has been added. Order XV, rule 2 Local Amendments made by Madras, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala provide that whenever a judgment is pronounced under Order XV, rule 2, a decree shall follow. It appears to be unnecessary to insert such an express provision, in view of section 33. Order XVI, rule 1 1. This carries out the recommendation made in the Fourteenth Report1. The recommendation in the Fourteenth Report is confined to witnesses summoned through court, but, in view of existing Order XVI, rule 1A, the provision proposed can be applied to all witnesses. The object is to lay down a procedure for filing a list of witnesses by the parties, and to provide that a person not mentioned in the list shall not be produced as a witness without the permission of the Court. 2. In sub-rule (2), the positive form has been considered preferable to the negative form-"No person shall be permitted", etc. 3. The Fourteenth Report recommended a period of 30 days, but it is considered that a period of 10 days should suffice. 1. 14th Report, Vol. I.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back