Holding

The civil court may order production of the original forensic report or document under Order XIII Rule 10 when essential for justice, and the trial court's refusal was a manifest error.

Summary

The appellants, co‑sharers, filed a suit to cancel a partition deed and also lodged an FIR alleging the deed was forged. The deed and the appellant’s signatures were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which produced reports on the signature and on the thumb impression. While the trial court allowed the application for the signature report under Order XIII Rule 10 of the CPC, it rejected a similar application for the thumb‑impression report on the ground of insufficient particulars. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred: when a document or expert report is essential for proving a case, the civil court may, under Order XIII Rule 10, direct its production even from police custody, and the lack of detailed particulars does not justify refusal. The Court emphasized that such direction does not stay the parallel criminal proceeding, and that procedural rules are a hand‑maid of justice and should not be used to defeat substantive rights. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a civil court can direct production of a document or forensic report held in police custody under Order XIII Rule 10 of the CPC.
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for the thumb‑impression report on the basis of alleged lack of particulars.
Whether such a direction would stay the concurrent criminal proceedings.
Whether the civil court may substitute the original document with a certified copy for evidentiary purposes.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XIII Rule 10, s. Order XIII Rule 8, s. Order XIII Rule 9
Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Subjects

partition deedforensic reportthumb impressionOrder XIII Rule 10civil and criminal concurrent proceedingsdocument productionprocedural mechanicsexpert evidence

Judgment

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 661
+
LAKSHMI & ANR. A
v.
CHINNAMMAL @ RAYYAMMAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2243 of 2009)

~ -\ APRIL 8, 2009
B
(S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0.13 r.10 -
Genuineness of a deed challenged before civil court -
Initiation of criminal proceedings also - In criminal c
proceeding deed sent for examination of signature and
thumb, impression of the person challenging it, to forensir;;
expert - Plaintiffs application calling for forensic report
..., regarding handwriting allowed - But application calling for
report regarding thumb impression dismissed - Held: D
Dismissal of the later application not justified - If bringing on
record a document is essential for proving a case, ordinarily
the same should not be refused - The procedural mechanics
necessary to arrive at just decision must be encouraged.
E
Appellant and respondents were co-sharers.
Allegedly they entered into a deed of partition. Appellant
filed a suit questioning the genuineness of the deed. He
also lodged an FIR in that regard. In the criminal
,... _,
proceedings, the partition deed was sent for examination
of signature and thumb impression of the appellant. F

In the pending suit, appellant filed an application for
calling for the report of forensic report from the court of
Judicial Magistrate as regards purported signature and
the same was allowed. Thereafter he filed another G
application for calling for the forensic report regarding
•
,..
~
the thumb impression. Trial court rejected the application
on the ground that the application did not furnish
requisite particulars and Order 13 Rule 10 CPC did not
661 H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A empower civil court to direc:t production of document
from the custody of police. A.n application under Article
227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed by High
Court. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the court
B
HELD: 1.1. If bringing on record a document is
essential for proving the case by a party, ordinarily the
same should not be refused; the Court's duty being to
find out the truth. The procedural mechanics necessary
C to arrive at a just decision must be encouraged. The court
in the said process, however, would not encourage any
fishing enquiry. It would also not assist a party in
·procuring a document which he should have himself
filed. [Para 12) [668-D, E]
D
1.2. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that by
calling for such documents, the court shall not bring
about a situation whereby a. criminal proceeding would
remain stayed as it is a well settled principle of law that
E where a civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding
is pending, the latter shall get primacy. [Para 13) [668-F)

1.4. In a civil suit, a document has to be proved. The
report of an expert is also required to be brought on
record in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act.
F Having regard to the provisions contained in Order XIII,
Rule 8 CPC, the civil court would furthermore be entitled
to substitute the original document by a certified copy.
Therefore, the original document could have been called
for. [Para 14) [669-G]
G
Union of India and Anr. v. The State and Anr. 1961 XLll
ITR 753; Kai/ash v. Nanhku and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480 and
Uday .Shankar Triyar v. Ram Ka/ewar Prasad Singh and Anr.
(2006) 1 sec 75, relied on.
H
LAKSHMI & ANR. v. CHINNAMMAL @ RAYYAM MAL & 663
ORS.

Anil Behari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dessi and Ors. A
AIR 1955 SC 566 and Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakunta/a
Devi (2004) 1 SCC 438, referred to.

2.1. In view of the fact that appellants in their
application disclosed that a First Information Report was 8
lodged on 1.11.2003 against the defendants. The same
was registered as Crime No.699/03; that the original
partition deed dated 28.11.2002 was sent to the Director,
Forensic Science Department along with appellant's
admitted signatures by the court of Judicial Magistrate, C
at the request of the Investigating Officer and that
plaintiffs have come to learn that a report of the expert
was also filed therein in regard to the thumb impression
of the appellants, trial Judge, committed a manifest error
in holding that requisite particulars have not been
furnished. [Paras 9 and 10) [667-F-G; 668-A-B] D

2.2. Trial Judge himself had allowed a similar
application so far as the opinion of the handwriting expert
was concerned. It is, therefore, difficult to comprehend as
to on what basis a similar prayer made by the appellant E
in regard to the opinion of the finger print expert could
be held to be not maintainable. [Para 11) [668-C]
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1955 SC 566 Referred to. Para 13 F
(2004) 1 sec 438 Referred to. Para 13
1961 XLll ITR 753 Relied on. Para 14
(2005) 4 sec 480 Relied on. Para 14 G
(2006) 1 sec 75 Relied on. Para 14
,. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2243 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.1.2007 of the High H
664 SUPREME COURT REPOR'1 ~ tL009] 5 S.C.R.

A Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P.P.D No. 559 of 2005.
Vijay Kumar, C. Jayaraj and Malini Poduval for the
Appellants.
V. Prabhakar, Ramjee Prasad and Revathy Raghavan for
B the Respondents.
/.- "'
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
5.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. 'Procedural Mechanics' involving interpretation of Order
c XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
called and referred to for the sake of brevity as the 'Code') falls
for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment
and order dated 5.1.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP No.559 of
D 2005.

3. Parties hereto are co-sharers. Allegedly, a deed of
partition was entered into by and be!tween them on or about
28.11.2002. Questioning the genuimmess of the said deed of
E partition, a suit for cancellation thereof was filed by the
appellant therein. Indisputably, in relation thereto, a First
Information Report was also lodged. During investigation, the
Investigating Officer recovered the purported original deed of
partition from the custody of the respondent. It was sent for
examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai.
F t ....,
4. Appellant filed an application in the said suit marked as
IA No.1 of 2005 calling for the report of the forensic expert from
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam as regards
the purported signatures of the petitioner. The said application '•
G was allowed by the learned Trial Judge. In the meantime,
allegedly a second report with regard to the of thumb
impression of the petitioner on 15.2.2005 was also received
from the Forensic Science Laboratory. He filed a similar •
application under Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code before the
H learned Trial Judge. By an order dated 8.3.2005, the Trial Court ~
LAKSHMI & ANR. v. CHINNAMMAL@ RAYYAMMAL & 665
ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
rejected the said application, stating : A

"But the petition does not contain the details such as serial
number and the date of the documents which are
requested to be sent for. The petition does not mention that
the documents are the records of Crime No.699/2003 or 8
-.# ·""" the related records. It has not been stated in both the
petition and the counter statement that the investigation is
over. Only the crime number has been mentioned in the
petition. Since it has not been stated on behalf of the
petitioner that the investigation is over and that the final
•, report has been filed in this regard, and that it is not
c
possible for the court to ask from time to time the
documents which are in their possession as a result of
investigation and that the provisions of Order XII I Rule 10
of CPC do not empower the civil court to direct the
y
production of document which are in the custody of police D
and that it has not been stated whether such document
have been filed and kept on the file of the court of judicial
Magistrate and that the issue whether the partition deed
is false or true to be established by examining witnesses
and it is the responsibility of the plaintiff in this regard and E
.. after that the examination of witnesses of both plaintiff and
defendant are not over and that keeping in mind the
objections raised by the respondents/defendants that the
petitioners/ plaintiffs are in collusion with the
- > Sathyamangalam Police and that it is not possible to send F
for the documents with the police when the investigation
is not over and that the plaintiff could establish the falsity
of the partition deed by other witnesses and other
documents and for the said reasons the petition is not
acceptable and having decided so." G
. ;
5. An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India filed thereagainst has been dismissed by the High Court
by reason of the impugned judgment.

6. Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A of the appellant, would submit
"*
(1) The learned Trial Court and consequently the High
Court committed an error in observing that the
details of the criminal case as also the court
wherein it had been pending was not disclosed by
B ~
the appellant. "'
(2) Order XI II Rule 10 of the Code having wide
application and having been enacted to further the
ends of justice and avoidance of multiplicity of
c proceedings, the same should have invoked.
(3) The genuineness and authenticity of the partition
deed dated 28.11.2002 being in issue in the suit,
the appellants were entitled to call for the report of
the expert to prove their case.
D y
7. Mr. V. Prabhakaran, learnE~d counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit:
(i) By directing the criminal court to transfer the
E evidence collected by the investigating officer the
proceeding before the criminal court shall remain
stayed, the impugned order should not be
interfered.
(ii) Appellant should have obtained the certified copy
F of the report and filed it before the civil court, which
having not been done, the impugned judgment
~ -
cannot be faulted with.
(iii) Appellant having not beem able to establish that the
G report in question was necessary for proving their
case, this Court should not exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. "
8. Order XIII of the Code provides for production,
H impounding and return of documents. Rule 1 of the said Order
LAKSHMI & ANR. v. CHINNAMMAL@ RAYYAMMAL & 667
ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
mandates production of original documents by the parties at A
or before the settlement of issues. Rule 9 of the Order XIII
provides for return of admitted documents. Rule 10 empowers
the Court to send papers from its own records or from other
courts. It reads as under :
...-. .... B
"10. Court may send for papers from its own records or
from other Courts.-(1) The Court may of its own motion,
and may in its discretion upon the application of any of the
... parties to a suit, send for, either from its own records or
from any other Court, the record of any other suit or
• proceeding, and inspect the same .
c
(2) Every application made under this rule shall (unless the
Court otherwise directs) be supported by an affidavit
showing how the record is material to the suit in which the
~
application is made, and that the applicant cannot without D
unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated
copy of the record or of such portion thereof as the
applicant requires, or that the production of the original is
necessary for the purposes of justice.
E
(3) Nothing contained in this rule shall be deemed to enable
the Court to use in evidence any document which under
the law of evidence would be inadmissible in the suit."

9. Appellants in their application disclosed the following
-~

' facts: F

(1) That a First Information Report was lodged on
1.11.2003 against the defendants. The same was
registered as Crime No.699/03.

(2) The original partition deed dated 28.11.2002 was G

-- -';
sent to the Director, Forensic Science Department
along with appellant's admitted signatures by the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam at
the request of the Investigating Officer.
H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A (3) Plaintiffs have come to learn that a report of the
expert was also filed therein in regard to the thumb
impression of the appellants.
-
-
10. In that view of the matter by the appellants, the learned
Trial Judge, in our opinion, committed a manifest error in holding
B "
that requisite particulars have not been furnished.
11. Furthermore, the learned Trial Judge himself had
allowed a similar application so far as the opinion of the
handwriting expert was concerned. It is, therefore, difficult to
c comprehend as to on what basis a similar prayer made by the
appellant in regard to the opinion of the finger print expert could -
be held to be not maintainable.
12. If bringing on record a document is essential for proving
the case by a party, ordinarily the same should not be refused; ~
D
the Court's duty being to find out the truth. The procedural
mechanics necessary to arrive at a just decision must be
encouraged. We are not unmindful of the fact that the court in
the said process would not encourage any fishing enquiry. It
would also not assist a party in procuring a document which
E he should have himself filed.

13. There cannot furthermore b1e any doubt that by calling
for such documents, the Court shall not bring about a situation
whereby a criminal proceeding would remain stayed as it is a
-
F well settled principle of law that where a Civil proceeding as ~ -·
also a Criminal proceeding is pending, the latter shall get
primacy.
In Anil Behari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dessi & Ors.
[AIR 1955 SC 566], it is stated :
G
"The learned counsel for thei contesting respondent
suggested that it had not been found by the lower appellate
court as a fact upon the evidence adduced in this case, ""
that Girish was the nearest agnate of the testator or that
H Charu had murdered his adoptive father, though these
LAKSHMI & ANR. v. CHINNAMMAL@ RAYYAM MAL & 669
-+ ORS. [S.8. SINHA, J.]
matters had been assumed as facts. The courts below A
have referred to good and reliable evidence in support of
the finding thatGirish was the nearest reversioner to the
estate of the testator. If the will is a valid and genuine will,
there is intestacy in respect of the interest created in favour
_,,,, of Charu if he was the murderer of the testator. On this
" question the courts below have assumed on the basis of
B

the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
High Court in the sessions trial that Charu was the
murderer. Though that judgment is relevant only to show
that there was such a trial resulting in the conviction and
J

sentence of Charu to transportation for life, it is not
c
evidence of the fact that Charu was the murderer. That
question has to be decided on evidence."

In Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi [(2004) 1
SCC 438], this Court held : D

"(3) A decision by a criminal court does not bind the civil
court while a decision by the civil court binds the criminal
court. An order passed by the Executive Magistrate in
proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code is an
E
order by a criminal court and that too based on a summary
enquiry. The order is entitled to respect and wait before
the competent court at the interlocutory stage. At the stage
of final adjudication of rights, which would be on the
- ' evidence adduced before the court, the order ·of the
Magistrate is only one out of several pieces of evidence." F

14. In a Civil Suit, a document has to be proved. The report
of an expert is also required to be brought on record in terms
of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Having regard to

... k
the provisions contained in Order XIII, Rule 9 (1) first proviso
(a)(i) of the Code, the Civil Court would furthermore be entitled
to substitute the original document by a certified copy. We,
therefore, fail to appreciate as to why the said original document
G

could not be called for.
H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R.
+
A We may notice that a Division Bench of the Calcutta High
Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Thi~ State & Anr. [1961 XLll
ITR 753) held that a document may also be called for from the
authorities under the Income Tax Aclt, stating:

B
"Further, it may be pointed out that Order XIII, rule 10(1) of
the Civil Procedure Code does not refer to a judicial
proceeding. It refers to a suit or proceeding. Even if the
proceeding in connection with the issue of a search
!<'

--
warrant under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act be
considered a non-judicial procieeding on the part of the
c Magistrate, such a non-judicial proceeding would still be
within the scope of Order XIII, rule 10(1) of the Civil
Procedure Code. In the circumstances, we cannot accept
the contention of Mr. Dutta that as there was no proceeding
before the Chief Presidency Magistrate the requisition no
D proceeding before the Chief Presidency Magistrate the
requisition under Order XIII, rul1e 10 of the Civil Procedure
Code made by the Income-tax Officer would not be a valid
requisition."

E In Kai/ash v. Nanhku & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 480), this
Court has categorically held:

"All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The
language employed by the draftsman of processual law

F
may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the
object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause
~ --
of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should
ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the
process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by
express and specific language of the statute, the
G provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment
ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave
the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the .. ......_
ends of justice."

H In Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh &
LAKSHMI & ANR. v. CHINNAMMAL@ RAYYAMMAL & 671
-t ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
Anr. [(2006) 1 SCC 75), it was observed : A
"17. Non-compliance with any procedural requirement
relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or

. ,.
application or petition for relief should not entail automatic
dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule
so mandates. Procedural defects and irregularities which
are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive
B

rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a hand-maiden to
justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or
perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use.
The well recognized exceptions to this principle are : c
(i) where the Statute prescribing the procedure, also
prescribes specifically the. consequence of non-
compliance.
(ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified even D
after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given
for rectifying it;
(iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to
be deliberate or mischievous;
E
(iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the
case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the
court.
(v) in case of Memorandum of Appeal, there is
~-}
complete absence of authority and the appeal is F
presented without the knowledge, consent ·and
authority of the appellant."
15. In view of the aforementioned pronouncements, we are
of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge should have acceded
to the prayer of the appellants herein. G

.v
16. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be
sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed.
No costs.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed. H