Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: A person summoned only to produce documents is not a witness unless formally called as such and cannot be cross-examined: Rakesh Sachdeva vs Rajesh Sachdeva (Delhi High Court, 12 March 2024)
Summary of the Judgment: Rakesh Sachdeva vs Rajesh Sachdeva (Delhi High Court, 12 March 2024)
Bench: Justice Dharmesh Sharma
Case No.: C.R.P. 217/2023 & CM Appl. 41227/2023
Background:
-
Parties: Rakesh Sachdeva (Petitioner/Defendant) vs. Rajesh Sachdeva (Respondent/Plaintiff)
-
Relation: Real brothers
-
Dispute: Ownership of a suit property. The plaintiff (Rajesh) claims ownership, while the defendant (Rakesh) alleges that the supporting documents are forged.
Core Issue:
Rakesh challenged the Trial Court's order (dated 02.06.2023) denying him the right to cross-examine two official witnesses summoned by Rajesh solely to produce certain documents (Special Power of Attorney and a receipt from 1983).
Legal Reasoning:
-
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's reliance on:
-
Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: A person summoned only to produce documents is not a witness unless formally called as such and cannot be cross-examined.
-
Precedents from:
-
Kotulpur Farmers’ Service vs. Sayera Bibi (Calcutta HC)
-
Rakesh Jain vs. CBI (Punjab & Haryana HC)
-
-
-
The official witnesses had no personal knowledge about the documents’ contents or execution and were not competent to testify on authenticity or parties’ identity.
-
As per Section 3 and 146 of the Evidence Act:
-
Cross-examination applies only when the witness deposes about facts in issue.
-
The official witnesses did not testify on any such facts and had no credibility or character to test.
-
Court's Conclusion:
-
The right to cross-examination was not applicable in this case.
-
Mere production or marking of documents does not amount to proving them.
-
The Trial Court’s decision was correct, with no illegality or perversity.
Final Order:
-
Revision Petition Dismissed.
-
No merit found in the petition.
-
Pending application disposed of.
Comments
Post a Comment