Whether documents can be produced at the stage of cross-examination without prior leave of the court: Hon'ɓle Supreme Court

-



Summary of the Judgment: Mohammed Abdul Wahid vs. Nilofer & Anr.

Background

The Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mohammed Abdul Wahid vs. Nilofer & Anr. addresses the issue of whether a party to a suit can be equated to a witness and whether documents can be produced at the stage of cross-examination without prior leave of the court.

Key Points and Legal Provisions

  1. Case Details:

    • Case Title: Mohammed Abdul Wahid vs. Nilofer & Anr.
    • Judgment Date: December 14, 2023
    • Judges: B. R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol

  2. Core Issues:

    • Whether a party to a suit (plaintiff/defendant) is also a witness.
    • Whether documents can be directly produced at the stage of cross-examination to confront a party or witness without seeking prior leave of the court.

  3. Legal Provisions:

    • Order VII Rule 14, Order VIII Rule 1-A, and Order XIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC): These rules govern the production of documents in civil proceedings.
    • Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Defines examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination of witnesses.
    • Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: States that parties to a civil suit and their spouses are competent witnesses.

  4. Court's Findings:

    • A party to a suit (plaintiff/defendant) cannot be equated with a witness. The provisions of Order VII, Rule 14(4), Order VIII, Rule 1-A(4), and Order XIII, Rule 1(3) are not applicable to a party who enters the witness box to tender evidence in their own cause.
    • Documents can be directly produced at the stage of cross-examination of a witness (who is not a party to the suit) to confront the witness without seeking prior leave of the court.
    • The observations in the cases of Purushottam s/o Shankar Ghodegaonkar and Vinayak M. Dessai were held to be correct in law, emphasizing that documents cannot be produced directly at the stage of cross-examination to confront a party to the suit.

  5. Precedents Cited:

    • Jones v. National Coal Board (1957 2 QB 55): Highlighted the judge's role in ensuring a fair trial by focusing on the truth and maintaining the distinction between a judge and an advocate.
    • State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (AIR 1961 SC 1808): Defined the scope of what it means "to be a witness."
    • S.P. Chengivaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1: Emphasized the importance of producing documents in support of one's claim to avoid fraud.

  6. Conclusion:

    • The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court, and clarified that a party to a suit cannot be equated to a witness for the purposes of document production during cross-examination.
    • The case was restored to the file of the High Court for a decision on merits in accordance with the law discussed.

This judgment provides clarity on the procedural aspects of civil litigation, particularly concerning the roles of parties and witnesses and the admissibility of documents during cross-examination.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Judgment Detailed Summary

-
Image
Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...
Read more

Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

-
Image
Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Citation: 2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar Legal Issues: Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable. Background: The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of...
Read more