Soumen Sen, J@mdashThis is an application for re-examination of Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, the third witness on behalf of the plaintiff in a testamentary proceeding for the grant of probate of the last Will and Testament dated November 12, 1990 executed by Late Kamla Devi Mantri.
2. During the course of his examination the applicant stated that he had accompanied his father Late Kamal Kumar Jain to the residence of the said deceased on 12th November, 1990 and was personally present at the time of execution and attestation of the said Will. During the course of his examination-in-chief, the applicant-witness has tendered 16 number of documents marked as Exhibit H, H-1, I, I-1, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 and R which, according to the petitioner, would demonstrate, establish and prove that Jain & Co., the firm in which his father Late Kamal Kumar Jain; his brother Ashok Kumar Jain and he were partners at the material time had dealt with the tax files of the said deceased as well as other members of the Mantri family.
3. It is submitted that during his cross-examination it was insinuated and suggested on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) that Pradeep Kumar Jain in his professional capacity, had personally not dealt with such files and nothing whatsoever to do with the tax files of the Mantris, particularly the tax files of the deceased. The application refers to Question Nos. 2, 3 & 9 to 24 of the examination-in-chief and Question Nos. 71, 72, 76, 88, 89-96, 122, 124 and 223 of the cross-examination of the witness which are reproduced hereinbelow:--
"Examination-in-chief
2. What do you do now?/I am practicing as a Chartered Accountant and I am a senior partner of Jain & Co., Chartered Accountants.
3. Since when you have been associated with the firm, Jain & Co., Chartered Accountants?/Since 1st April, 1974 and at that time I was about 18 years old and I was under my father, who was the sole proprietor of Jain & Co. Chartered Accountants at that time, and I became a Chartered Accountant on 1st April, 1984.
9. What was the nature of your work in the firm in or about 1990?/In the year 1990, our firm was basically engaged in tax and audit works and my father, in fact, was suffering from rheumatic pains since many years and on that account, I used to accompany him to various statutory authorities or visit to our clients. In the year 1990, I have almost had 16 years'' office experience and about 6 or 7 years as a Chartered Accountant in the firm.
10. Can you name some of the clients of the firm who worked with you and with whom your father also worked?/We did tax and audit works of various clients out of which I did audit work of Birla''s also and we also handled the income tax and wealth tax files of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri as well as we looked into various accounts of family members also.
11. (shown a document, which is disclosed at serial No. 2 of plaintiff''s Judge''s Brief of Documents) what is this document about?/This is the acknowledgement of filing of the wealth tax return of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri. This document was filed on 6th March, 1991. This is the original acknowledgement of filing of the wealth tax return.
12. Did you find any signature at the bottom right hand corner of the document just over the printed words "Signature of Assessee''?/Yes, the signature is of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri.
13. How are you able to identify this signature to be that of Late Kamala Devi Mantri?/In fact, we were handling her income tax and wealth tax files and in course of which various documents were sent to her and used to come back. On the basis of which her signatures is identified. A responsible officer from my office used to go to her residence for getting the income tax and wealth tax returns that were to be filed annually for her signature and brought back to our office.
14. Are the contents of this document true and correct?/Yes.
15. Was this document signed by Late Kamala Devi Mantri in the usual course of signing of her annual return (subject to objection)?/Yes.
(Witness encircles the signature of Late Kamala Devi Mantri in red ink)
The document is tendered and marked as Exhibit H and the signature of Late Kamala Devi Mantri is marked as Exhibit H-1)
16. (Shown a document which is disclosed at serial No. 1 of plaintiff''s Judge''s Brief of Documents) What is this document about?/This is the indemnity bond that has been signed by Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri to obtain credit in respect of tax deducted out of dividend of Rs. 3,888/- by Birla Jute and Industries Limited.
17. What was it necessary to have this indemnity bond executed by Late Kamala Devi Mantri?/This was necessary because Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri had misplaced the original dividend warrant on the basis of which credit would have been allowed and without furnishing the indemnity bond credit in respect of Rs. 3,888/- would not have been allowed.
18. Who prepared this indemnity bond?/This bond was prepared by me.
19. Please see the document and tell whether you can identify the three signatures appearing on this document?/The three signatures appearing on this bond are that of the Advocate on the left side to identify the signature of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri, in the center is that the Notary Public and the right side is that of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri.
20. Where was this document executed?/This document was executed at her residence at 6/3, Queen''s Park, Kolkata - 700 019 where the Advocate accompanied the Notary Public and all the three persons who were the signatory of this bond were signed before me.
21. Are the contents of this document true and correct?/Yes.
22. Was this document signed by Late Kamala Devi Mantri in the usual course?/Yes.
(Witness encircles the signature of Late Kamala Devi Mantri in red ink)
(The document is tendered and marked as Exhibit I and the signature of Late Kamala Devi Mantri is marked as Exhibit I-1)
23. Where were all these documents kept?/These documents were lying in the records sections of our office.
24. Please explain what you have meant by our office?/Our office means at the office of Jain & Co., Chartered Accountants at P. 21/22. Radha Bazar Street, 2nd floor, Kolkata - 700 001.
Cross-examination
71. Mr. Jain, previously certain documents were shown to you where you have been shown wealth tax return and you have been made indemnity bond and in none of this document your name features in any way either in the indemnity bond or in the wealth tax return - do you agree?/Obviously, my name cannot feature in this document.
72. Nor your name anyway feature in the document which had been shown to you, supposed to have been executed on 12th November, 1990?/It does not.
76. In this proceeding no document has been produced to show that you are anyway connected with the ''Jain and Company'' - do you know that?/I am aware of it but I am also a senior partner of ''Jain & Co''. There is no doubt about it. Had there been a question the evidence in that respect also would have been provided. But I am senior partner of the firm ''Jain & Co.''
88. So, it was basically Mr. Ashoke Jain who interconnected with Mantri - am I right?/No, my father had more interconnection with senior level. Again my elder brother was engaged for interaction to the extent of work that was conducted by him and even I was interaction with the work connected with Mantri, that I did.
89. Do you find that no document has been disclosed to show that you had done any work for Mantri''s family?/I have made out the indemnity bond in respect of the tax credit certificate of Rs. 3888/- and the original has been misplaced because of which reason the indemnity bond had to be made.
90. I am suggesting to you that indemnity bond which is Exbt. "I" in this proceeding does not in any manner show your involvement, preparation or discharged of that bond?/It is a fact that my signature or hand writing evidence will not be there because it is the typed document under my instruction in my office based on which the Advocate, notary and Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri signed on that document.
91. (shown Exbt. "I") From this document can you find your involvement in the preparation or any connection in any manner in this document?/Prima facie, it obviously cannot be evidence in that respect because it was not required for the ground work. Making of the indemnity bond was done at my office and typed at my office under my instruction and I was also present when this indemnity bond was signed by three respective persons noted or signed on the indemnity bond.
92. Do you find that somebody signed on the left-hand side? Yes.
93. What was the purpose of that signature?/He is an advocate who escorted the notary to the residence of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri.
94. Now it appears that he had identified Mrs. Mantri?/Yes.
95. What was the difficulty of your identifying Mrs. Mantri - Why could not you do that?/I did not feel necessary because the advocate had been sent to take the notary so this was the added signature.
96. From the document itself there is no iota of evidence that your presence or your involvement were at all there?/I do not think it was necessary.
122. Did you accept the fact that Ashoke Jain who was actually dealing with the files of the Mantri (subject to objection)?/No.
124. Will you be surprised to know that some documents have been disclosed in other proceeding between the Mantri''s where actually the name of Ashoke Kumar Jain has figured and in none of the documents your name has figured?/May be.
223. And if it is put to you that the accounts and income tax of these persons were looked after by Ashoke Jain, are you in a position to deny?/Yes. I am denying."
4. It is stated that the aforesaid insinuation and suggestions put to the witness during his cross-examination are incorrect and were intended to cause suspicion and doubts regarding the credibility of the witness, his involvement in Jain and Co. with regard to matters concerning the tax files of the Mantris, particularly the tax files of the said deceased and finally with regard to the probative value of his evidence. It is stated that on or about 7th April, 2015 even while the cross-examination of the said witness was still underway, the advocate-on-record of the petitioner-applicant has disclosed three documents and forwarded the said documents to the defendant''s advocate-on-record:--
"1. Copy of the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 1992-93.
2. Copy of the Computation of Taxable Income for the Assessment Year 1992-93.
3. Copy of the letter dated February 22, 1992 from Jain & Co. to Kamla Devi Mantri."
5. The aforesaid documents were forwarded to the defendants'' Advocate-on-record so that the defendants may be put on notice that the aforesaid documents would be relied on and tendered in exhibit by the witness to dispel any doubts on the matter and to confirm his personal involvement in dealing with the tax files of the Mantris, particularly the tax files of Late Kamla Devi Mantri.
6. The applicant-witness during his examination deposed that the said deceased as well as the attesting witnesses had signed on page 6 of the said Will; on the reverse of the first page and had also put their initials on the other pages thereof. The petition refers to Question Nos. 30, 31-37 & 40-47 of the examination-in-chief of the witness which are reproduced hereinbelow:--
"30. Can you tell My Lord as to how you and your father happened to come to premises No. 6/3, Queens Park, Kolkata - 700 019 in connection with the execution of the Will of Late Kamala Devi Mantri?/My father had the habit of discussing the various office work with me in the year 1990. I remember he told me that he had received a call from Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri. She told my father on phone that her Will was to be prepared and in which connection certain requests were made by her. In fact, my father never enquired regarding the contents of the Will or the requests that were made by her. Because that was a matter of privileged communication. Then sometimes in November, 1990 i.e. on 12th November, I escorted my father to the residence of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri by my car. We reached her residence at or around 5 PM. We entered the first floor of the premises in a hall where she was present. At that time, one Mr. Balkrishan Toshirmal was also sitting over there. Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri said that we had to wait for some time because Dr. M.S. Vaidya, who was a part in the execution of the Will and who was the family physician and very close to Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri''s family. My father then took out the Will and explained the contents of the Will in Hindi to Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri. Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri did not speak English fluently but she could read and write in English. She expressed satisfaction to the contents of the Will when my father explained the same to her. She then herself also went through the Will and appeared satisfied. Then came Dr. M.S. Vaidya and Mr. Tejamal Jain. Then Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri took up the Will for execution. She first signed the Will at page 6 and then she put her initials on all other pages of the Will in front of my father, Dr. Vaidya, Mr. Toshirmal and me. Thereafter my father took the Will and under the signature of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri at page 6, put his signature. He also put his signature as a witness on the left side on page 6 in front of person as mentioned. Then Dr. Vaidya signed as the second witness of the Will. (subject to objection).
[The Court: Mr. Pradeep Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel, however, objects to the portion of this evidence as a hearsay evidence.]
31. You have deposed that late Kamala Devi Mantri signed on page 6 of the Will. Please encircle the signature which, according to you, was put by her, in red pencil?/The witness encircles the signatures in red. (subject to objection.)
(The signature of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri is marked as Exbt. J) (subject to objection.)
32. Please look at page 6 of the certified copy of the document, you have deposed that just above the signature of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri, which you have just now identified and endorsed, there is an endorsement written in hand. Whose hand writing is that?/This is the signature of my father, Kamal Kumar Jain. (subject to objection.)
33. Please encircle the signature and the hand writing of your father at page 6 of this document?/The witness encircles the endorsement and the signatures in blue ink. (subject to objection.)
(The signature is marked as Exbt.-K) (subject to objection.)
34. Please encircle after identifying the signature of Dr. M.S. Vaidya appearing at page 6 of this document?/The witness encircles the signature of Dr. M.S. Vaidya in pencil.
(The signature is marked as Exbt.-L) (subject to objection.)
35. Apart from page 6, did Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri put her signature on any other page of this document?/No, she only put her initials.
36. Can you identify the initials of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri appearing on this page?/Yes.
37. Please encircle that after identifying the same?/Witness encircles the signature in red from page 1 to 6.
(The initials are collectively marked as Exbt.-M) (subject to objection.)
40. I am showing you the document, which you had on the previous occasion deposed having been signed by Late Kamala Devi Mantri and various other persons as mentioned in answer to Q. 30. Please see page 6 of this document and tell My Lord whether you can identify who has signed above the signature of Dr. M.S. Vaidya which has been marked as Exbt. ''L''?/This is the signature of my father Kamal Kumar Jain.
41. Please encircle the signature which you now identify to be your father''s in red [subject to objection]?/[Witness encircles the signature in red.]
[The encircled portion is marked as Exbt. ''N'']
42. Below the signature which has now been marked as Exbt. ''N'', there are four further lines written in holographic script. Can you identify as to who has written these four lines?/They are written by my father only.
43. Please encircle the four lines which you have now indicated to have been written by your father in his handwriting [Subject to Objection]?/[Witness encircles in red.]
[The encircled portion is marked as Exbt. ''O''.]
44. You will also find that above the signatures at page 6, a date has been put in by hand. Do you know who has put this date by hand?/This date of 12th November has also been put by my father.
45. Please encircle the portion which you have now indicated to have been written by your father in his handwriting [Subject to Objection]?/[Witness encircles in red.]
[The encircled portion is marked as Exbt. ''P''.]
46. When Mrs. Kamla Devi Mantri signed on the Will at page No. 6 and put her initials on the other pages which you have deposed in answer to question No. 30, where were you?/I was present when Mrs. Kamla Devi Mantri signed the said documents.
47. During this time when late Kamla Devi Mantri signed page No. 6 and put her initials on the other pages, do you know where your father, late Kamal Kr. Jain and Dr. M.S. Baidya?/They were also there together."
7. During the course of the cross-examination of the witness, after referring to the said Will it was, however, suggested to the witness on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) that he had deposed earlier April 1, 2015 that ''there are six pages of this document'' as would appear from Question Nos. 170 to 173 of the cross-examination are reproduced below:--
"170. And you had deposed that there are six pages of this document - do you recall?/Yes.
171. And your father took all the six pages only and nothing else to the residence of Kamala Devi Mantri on 12.11.90?/There was one cover file in which this Will was kept and I remember carrying the cover file and giving to my father when Kamala Devi Mantri asked him to show the Will to her. So this Will was taken out of the cover file.
172. And these six pages were taken out of the cover file in your presence?/Yes.
173. And nothing else?/Nothing else."
8. It is stated that the witness bona fide relied on the statements of the cross-examining Counsel and had, accordingly, presumed that the learned Counsel had correctly summarized his evidence. Later on after going through the transcript of the deposition it transpired that the witness had never deposed that the said Will consisted of six pages and his evidence was limited to his assertion that the said deceased and other persons named by him during his examination had signed on the 6th page; on the reverse of the first page and had also initialed the other pages. Accordingly, a voluntary statement in this connection has been made by the witness in Court on June 15, 2015. It is in connection with the aforesaid suggestions put to him to the effect that he had already deposed that there were only six pages in the said Will that the witness was asked whether he was aware that Exhibit R (the said Will) refers to a plan annexed to the document, the witness had answered that he was not aware that the said Will contained such a reference.
9. Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Sakya Sen, Advocate for the plaintiff submitted that no opportunity was given to the witness to clarify that although he was not aware of the reference to such a plan in Exhibit R but he was aware of the existence of a plan produced by the said deceased at the time of its execution and attached by her to the said Will. The evidence adduced in the cross-examination in this regard creates an ambiguity which is capable of being construed unfavourable with regard to the very existence of the plan and the witness''s knowledge of the existence of such a plan. The suggestion also aims at discrediting the evidence adduced by the witness. The answer ''I am not aware'' in Question No. 170 of his cross-examination relates only to his knowledge as to whether Exhibit R refers to a plan and not to the aspect whether he was/is aware of the existence of such a plan and whether the same was made part of the Will by the testatrix. The learned senior Counsel has referred to Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act and submitted that the Court has the widest amplitude of discretion to permit re-examination. There is no impediment in re-examination being conducted in relation to matters referred to in the cross-examination. The learned Senior Counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
10. The contesting defendants have filed an affidavit in which the defendants have objected to re-examination of Mr. Pradip Kumar Jain on the following grounds:--
"i) To lead new evidence and make out a new case by way of oral evidence.
ii) In the absence of any ambiguity, the petitioner is seeking to re-examine Pradip Kumar Jain with the sole object of giving the witness an opportunity to undo the effect of previous statements.
iii) Questions put forth in the petition are in the nature of leading questions that are to be put to the witness in his re-examination which is impermissible under the law.
iv) The petitioner is seeking to undo the evidence led by the witness in his cross-examination and is seeking to re-examine the witness to introduce an altogether new evidence which is impermissible."
11. Mr. Pradip Kumar Ghose, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants submit that the evidence of the witness would show that the said witness had no personal knowledge about the execution of the Will or in relation to the matters in respect whereof the plaintiffs want to re-examine Mr. Pradip Kumar Jain. It is submitted that whether the witness had personally dealt with the files of the testatrix or any of the Mantris, would be borne out from the cross-examination of the witness. The deposition of the witness is clear and ambiguous and cannot be rectified and undone by way of his examination-in-chief.
12. It is submitted that in the garb of this application, the entire case for leading further evidence by way of re-examination unconnected with the witness tendered in examination-in-chief and cross-examination is sought to be made. The learned senior Counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
13. Section 138 says that re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of any part of his evidence given during cross-examination which is capable of being construed unfavourably to his own side. The object is to give an opportunity to reconcile the discrepancies, if any, between the statements in examination-in-chief and cross-examination or to explain any statement inadvertently made in cross-examination or to remove any ambiguity in the deposition. Where there is no ambiguity or where there is nothing to explain, questions put in re-examination with the sole object of giving a chance to the witness to undo the effect of a previous statement, however, should not be allowed.
14. In Queen''s Case, 2B & B, PP. 284, 297, LORD TENTERDON said:--
"I think that counsel has a right upon re-examination to ask all questions which may be proper to draw forth an explanation of the sense and meaning of the expressions used by the witness on cross-examination, if they be in themselves doubtful, and also of the motive by which the witness was induced to use those expressions; but I think he has no right to go further, and to introduce matter new in itself and not wanted for the purpose of explaining either the expressions or the motives of the witness."
15. In Halsbury''s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 17, Page 195, Para 280, Halsbury writes:--
"On the conclusion of his cross-examination a witness may be re-examined on behalf of the party for whom he has given evidence in chief, for the purpose of explaining any part of his evidence given during cross-examination which is capable of being construed unfavourably to his own side; but no questions may be asked in re-examination which introduce wholly new matters, except by leave of the Court, which is given subject to cross-examination on the new matter. Where, however, questions asked in cross-examination let in evidence which would not have been admissible in chief, the witness may be re-examined upon it. Leading questions are not permissible in re-examination".
16. After a witness has been cross-examined, the party who called him has a right to re-examine him, and to ask all questions which may be proper to draw forth an explanation of the meaning and the expressions used by the witness on cross-examination, if they be in themselves doubtful; and also of the motive, or provocation which induced the witness to use those expressions; but he has no right to go further, and to introduce matter new in itself and not suited to the purpose of explaining either the expressions or the motives of the witness.
17. The very purpose of re-examination is to explain matters which have been brought down in cross-examination. The purpose of the re-examination is only to get the clarifications of some doubts created in the cross-examination. The object of a cross-examination is to afford the witness an opportunity to make explanation, rendered necessary by his cross-examination. The purpose is to clear the obscurities and bring facts to stronger light by questions that re-call the mind of the witness to the facts to which he testified in his direct examination and of which his knowledge is clear and distinct. One cannot supplement the examination-in-chief by way of re-examination and for the first time, start introducing totally new facts, which have no concern with the cross-examination. [
18. In Rammi (supra) the Hon''ble Supreme Court has explained the object of Section 138 of the Evidence Act. The principle laid down in the said judgment is that if a question arises that re-examination is necessary for clarification of ambiguities or certain answers require more elucidation from the witness, the Counsel has a liberty to put any such question in re-examination to get the explanation but before that it would be necessary to formulate the questions for that purpose, and the learned Counsel would have the freedom and right to put such questions as he deems necessary for the purpose, subject to the control of the Court in accordance with the other provisions of the Act. But the Court cannot direct him to confine his questions to ambiguities, alone, which arose in cross-examination. If the learned Counsel feels that new matters should be elicited from the witness he can do so, in which case the only requirement is that he must secure permission of the Court. If the Court thinks that such new matters are necessary for proving any material fact, the Courts must be liberal in granting permission to put necessary questions. There is no warrant that re-examination should be limited to one or two questions. If the exigency requires any number of questions can be asked in re-examination.
19. Indeed Section 138 gives the statutory right to the party calling a witness to re-examine him after the cross-examination. Such a right is, however, not unlimited. It is qualified to the extent that the re-examination is required to be confined only to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination and if new matter is, however, required to be introduced in re-examination, the party does not have the absolute right to do so. It has to seek the permission of the Court for introducing new matter, and if it is allowed to be introduced by the Court, the adverse party has a right to further cross-examine the witness upon the matter. A witness cannot be summoned for re-examination to fill up lacuna brought out by cross-examination of the witness by the other party. It is well settled that a party should not be allowed to take advantage of ambiguous statement or just a slip or mistake.
20. The cardinal rule of re-examination is that it must be confined to such matters as arose out of the cross-examination. Thus, although the witness may be asked to clarify or explain any matters, including evidence of new facts, which arose in cross-examination, questions on other matters may only be asked with the leave of the judge. In Prince v. Samo [(1838) 7 AD & EL 627], Lord Denman, CJ held that where a witness under cross-examination has given evidence on part of a conversation, evidence may not be given in re-examination about everything that was said in that conversation, but only about so much of it as is in some way connected with the evidence given in cross-examination. The witness could, for example, be re-examined about things said which qualify or explain the statement on which he was cross-examined, but not about things said on other distinct and unrelated matters.
21. During the course of Cross-examination of Mr. Pradip Kumar Jain there was a suggestion that he had personally not dealt with the files of the testatrix or of the Mantris and there is nothing on record to show that the witness had anything to do with the tax files of the deceased. The questions referred to in the said application would go to show that the defendants want to establish at the trial that the witness personally was not involved with the matters pertaining to tax and had never dealt with the tax files of the Mantris. During the course of Cross-examination on 7th April, 2015, the Advocate-on-record of the plaintiff disclosed three documents, namely, i) copy of the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 1992-93 ii) copy of the Computation of Taxable Income for the Assessment Year 1992-93 and iii) copy of the letter dated February 22, 1992 from Jain & Co. to Kamala Devi Mantri to show personal involvement of the witness in dealing with the tax files of Mantris particularly the tax files of late Kamala Devi Mantri. These documents the witness wants to bring on record to show his involvement so as to dispel the doubt sought to be created about his lack of knowledge and involvement in preparation of tax files of the deceased and Mantris. In my view the evidence sought to be tendered being clarificatory in nature and an attempt to establish his involvement in matters pertaining to tax the prayer for recalling the witness for examining him on the said three documents is allowed.
22. In so far as the questions on the number of pages of the Will are concerned it may be necessary to refer to Question Nos. 169 to 174 of the Cross-examination. The said questions are:--
"169. Have you seen this document which is Ext. R in this proceeding, any time prior to coming to testify in this Court?/No.
170. And you had deposed that there are six pages of this document - do you recall?/Yes.
171. And your father took all the six pages only and nothing else to the residence of Kamala Devi Mantri on 12.11.90?/There was one cover file in which this Will was kept and I remember carrying the cover file and giving to my father when Kamala Devi Mantri asked him to show the Will to her. So this Will was taken out of the cover file.
172. And these six pages were taken out of the cover file in your presence?/Yes.
173. And nothing else?/Nothing else.
174. Do you know that this particular document, being Ext. R, refers a plan being annexed to this document?/I am not aware."
23. There cannot be any doubt that Question No. 170 presupposes that the witness had deposed that there are only six pages of the said document, although answers given by the witness during his examination-in-chief, the witness had never stated that the said document is of six pages. The witness before commencement of his cross-examination on 15th June, 2015 made a voluntary statement to the effect that the answer given in relation to the said question was on a presumption that the learned senior Counsel must have summarized the evidence of the said witness but on going through the deposition the witness found that it was not so and what he said, in fact, was that late Kamala Devi Mantri had signed on the sixth page and initialed all other pages. This statement is in conformity with his earlier deposition. Since it is a voluntary statement by way of clarification questions may be put to the witness in relation to the voluntary statement made by him and not in respect of any other matters.
24. The contesting defendants shall be permitted to cross-examine the witness on re-examination. This application is allowed only to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
25. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
