Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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