A. ORDER 10-EXAMIANTION OF PARTIES BY THE COURT

1. Rule 1 enables the court to ascertain from each of the parties (or his pleader), at the first hearing whether he admits or denies such of those allegations of fact made in the pleadings of the other party, which were not expressly or by necessary implication admitted or denied by him.
2. In other words, if the defendant in his written statement fails to expressly or by necessary implication admit or deny any of the plaint allegations, the court can ascertain from the defendant, whether he admits or denies the said plaint allegations.
3. Similarly, if the defendant has made some allegations against the plaintiff in his written statement, and no reply is filed thereto by the plaintiff, the court can ascertain whether plaintiff admits or denies those allegations.
4. Resort to Rule 1 of Order 10 is necessary only in cases where the court finds that the plaintiff or the defendant has failed to expressly or impliedly admit or deny any of the allegations made against him, by the other party.
5. Examination under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Code will not be necessary where the pleadings of each party have been fully and clearly traversed by the other party.
6. On the other hand, the examination under Rule 2 of Order 10 of the Code, need not be restricted to allegations in the pleadings of the other party, but can relate to elucidating any matter in controversy in the suit.
7. Further, under Rule 1 of Order 10, the court can examine only the parties and their advocates, that too at the `first hearing'. On the other hand, Rule 2 enables the court to examine not only any party, but also any person accompanying either party or his pleader, to obtain answer to any material question relating to the suit, either at the first hearing or subsequent hearings.
8. The object of oral examination under Rule 2 of Order 10 is to ascertain the matters in controversy in suit, and not to record evidence or to secure admissions.
9. The statement made by a party in an examination under Rule 2 is not under oath, and is not intended to be a substitute for a regular examination under oath under Order 18 of the Code. It is intended to elucidate what is obscure and vague in the pleadings.
10. In other words, while the purpose of an examination under Rule 1 is to clarify the stand of a party in regard to the allegations made against him in the pleadings of the other party, the purpose of the oral examination under Rule 2 is mainly to elucidate the allegations even in his own pleadings, or any documents filed with the pleadings.
11. The power under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code, cannot be converted into a process of selective cross-examination by the court, before the party has an opportunity to put forth his case at the trial.
12. The above position of law is well settled. In Manmohan Das v. Mt. Ramdei & Anr. [AIR 1931 PC 175], the Privy Council observed:

"No doubt under Order 10, Rule 2, any party present in Court may be examined orally by the Court at any stage of the hearing, and the Court may if it thinks fit put in the course of such examination questions suggested by either party. But this power is intended to be used by the Judge only when he finds it necessary to obtain from such party information on any material questions relating to the suit and ought not to be employed so as to supersede the ordinary procedure at trial as prescribed in Order 18."

1. in Arunagiri Goundan v. Vasantharoya Koundan & Ors (AIR 1949 Madras 707), held as follows referring to Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code :

"At the outset it must be pointed out that this (Order 10 Rule 2) does not provide for an examination on oath. This provision was intended to be used to elucidate the matters in controversy in suit before the trial began. This is not a provision intended to be used to supersede the usual procedure to be followed at the trial."

1. The object of Order 10 Rule 2 is not to elicit admissions. Nor does it provide for or contemplate admissions. The admissions are usually contemplated

1. in the pleadings (express or constructive under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code);

1. during examination of a party by the court under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Code;

1. in answers to interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 8 of the Code;

1. in response to notice to admit facts under Order 12 Rule 4 of the Code;

1. in any evidence or in an affidavit, on oath; and

1. when any party voluntarily comes forward during the pendency of a suit or proceedings to make an admission.

1. The power of court to call upon a party to admit any document and record whether the party admits or refuses or neglects to admit such document is traceable to Order 12 Rule 3A rather than Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code.
2. Nothing however comes in the way of the court combining the power under Order 12 Rule 3A with its power under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code and calling upon a party to admit any document when a Party is being examined under Order 10 Rule 2.
3. But the court can only call upon a party to admit any document and cannot cross-examine a party with reference to a document.
4. In short , we may conclude that the power under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code cannot be converted into a process of selective cross-examination by the Court, before the party has an opportunity to put forth his case at the trial -   Object of Order 10 Rule 2 CPC is not to elicit admission .

Nor does it provide for or contemplate admission - But the Court can only call upon a party to admit any document . [KAPIL COREPACKS PVT.LTD. & ORS. VERSUS SHRI HARBANS LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AIR 2010 SC 2809 ]