Manoj Kumar @ Munna v. Nita Bharti

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1195 of 2016 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar @ Munna .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Nita Bharti .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumar Binode Bariar For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 07-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

Perused the impugned order dated 13.07.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai in Divorce Case No.69 of 2013 whereby the court below refused to mark four letters as exhibit.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the present petitioner had filed four letters alleged to have been written by the respondent and a witness was examined on behalf of the petitioner, who stated that the signatures appearing on the letters are of the respondent herein. The court below refused to mark the letters as exhibit on the ground that the respondent was examined earlier but the letters were not confronted to her. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhau Patil Vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil and another, A.I.R.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1195 of 2016 (3) dt.07-12-2016 1977 Supreme Court 1712 has held that an opportunity should be given to the person if the document is to be used against party who has made it, it is sound that if a witness is under cross-examination on oath, he should be given an opportunity, if the documents are to be used against him to tender his explanation and to clear up the point of ambiguity or dispute. This is a general salutary and intelligible rule. Therefore, a mere proof of admission after the person whose admission it is alleged to have concluded his evidence, will be of no avail and cannot be utilized against him. In the present case also, when the respondent was examined, letters were not confronted to her. Therefore, the letters cannot be used against her. If the letters cannot be read against her then no purpose will be served by marking the same as exhibits. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Harish/- U