Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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