Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 956 (RAJ)

Krishna Devi v. Prakash Chand

2012-04-16

VINEET KOTHARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned order dated 16.04.2009, the learned trial court has allowed certain corrections to be made in the statement of plaintiff - PW.1, namely, Prakash Chand in the examination-in-chief, which was recorded by the learned trial court on 26.02.2004, about five years back. The cross-examination of the said witness PW.1, Prakash Chand was still pending. While passing the order impugned, the learned trial court has observed that witness's demeanour during the statement being recorded, it was found that his voice was not clear and he was replying to the questions not very smoothly but hesitatingly and, therefore, through his voice it appeared that corrections like typing " nf{k.k " in place of " mRrj] nknk " in palce of " pkpk " and " dapu nsoh " in place of " lTtu nsoh " appeared to be bonafide mistakes, which deserve to be corrected before the cross-examination of the said witness PW.1, Prakash Chand is undertaken. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, Mr. D.R. Bhandari, submitted that in the case of partition suit, once the statement are recorded by the learned court below and it was signed with the remark "R.O. & A.C." (Read Over and Admitted to be Correct), no correction in the statement was possible. In support of his case, he replied upon following case laws: 1. H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. reported in 2010 AIR SCW 3636. 2. Natwar Lal & Ors. v. Prahlad Singh & Ors. reported in 2005 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 904 3. Mrs. Des Raj Chopra & Ors. v. Puran Mal & Ors. reported in AIR 1975 Delhi 109. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs opposed these submissions and submitted that in exercise of power under Section 151 CPC, if Judge finds that corrections in the statement is required to be made, he has power under Rule 16 (3), which is quoted below for ready reference. "16. Power to examine witness immediately:- (1) ...... (2) ...... (3) The evidence so taken shall be read over to the witness, and, if he admire it to be correct, shall be signed by him, and the Judge, shall, if necessary, correct the same, and shall sign it, and it may then be read at any hearing of the suit." 5. Power to examine witness immediately:- (1) ...... (2) ...... (3) The evidence so taken shall be read over to the witness, and, if he admire it to be correct, shall be signed by him, and the Judge, shall, if necessary, correct the same, and shall sign it, and it may then be read at any hearing of the suit." 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that no interference in the impugned order is called for. The demeanour of the witness PW.1 can be best examined by the Presiding Officer only. If the Court is of the opinion that looking to the voice and manner in which the witness gave statement, and certain typing mistakes/errors might have been crept in the statements, and if such errors are sought to be corrected and as stated above, the said errors appears to be typing of " nf{k.k " in place of " mRrj] nknk " in place of " pkpk " and " dapu nsoh " in place of " lTtu nsoh ", are such bonafide mistakes, which the learned court below has rightly permitted in the impugned order to be corrected in the examination in- chief while permitting the counsel for the plaintiffs to cross examine the said witness. Rule 16 (3) clearly permits that a Judge, shall, if necessary, correct and shall sign it. Merely because there is some time gap between two dates and upon the subsequent application the Court has permitted such typing errors to be corrected, the same cannot be said to be outside the scope of Rule 16 (3) so as to require interference by this Court in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. There is neither any total prohibition in the provisions of Rule 16 (3) of CPC nor discretion of the learned trial Judge can be fettered in this regard in the manner sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners. 6. There is neither any total prohibition in the provisions of Rule 16 (3) of CPC nor discretion of the learned trial Judge can be fettered in this regard in the manner sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners. The court below has clearly found that voice of the witness PW.1 was not clear and typing errors might have bonafidely crept in, therefore, upon scrutiny of the statement, if such typing errors are corrected by the court below, such corrected statement should only be read in evidence and not the incorrect statement, as any error in the statement, to the knowledge of the court would undoubtedly affect the course of justice. 7. Consequently, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order and the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.Petition dismissed. *******