SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Document Presented During Cross Examination Must Be Placed On Judicial File: Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi High Court has ruled that if a document produced during cross-examination of a witness is admitted or denied by the witness, it cannot be returned and must be placed in the court file.

Justice Mini Pushkarna was reviewing a motion filed by the plaintiffs in the civil suit under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to file additional documents.

During the recording of the testimony of the defendant's witness, the plaintiffs presented the "returned envelope" in front of the witness to verify those addresses, according to the plaintiffs' argument. However, the Local Commissioner refused to acknowledge or record these envelopes.

Thus, the plaintiffs petitioned the High Court for permission to record "returned envelopes" that they had received with return remarks.

It was argued that the 'returned envelopes' were not a new or unexpected document because they pertained to letters or express mail receipts that were already part of the court record. Thus, it was requested on behalf of the plaintiffs that these additional documents be admitted into evidence.

Noting that the speed post receipts related to the 'returned envelopes' were already part of the Court's record, the Court stated that the 'returned envelopes' could not be considered new documents, as other related documents were already on file."

Thus, the envelopes sought to be recorded do not represent a new development or occurrence. In light of this, there would be no prejudice to the defendant if the aforementioned documents were admitted for cross-examination of DW1. In addition, as pointed out by the plaintiffs' counsel, these documents go to the heart of the dispute between the parties, as the defendant intentionally did not receive the notices and letter sent by the plaintiffs via express mail "court stated.

It added to "In accordance with CPC provisions, a document may be introduced/displayed for the first time during cross-examination. If the document produced during cross-examination of a witness is either admitted or denied, the document cannot be returned and must be placed in the court file."

Due to the fact that the envelopes in question were presented to the defendant's witness during the course of testimony, the court granted the application and the "returned envelopes" were entered into evidence.

D.D:08-07-2022

BHAG SINGH GAMBHIR AND ORS VersusRAMA ARORA

Latest Legal News