Documents Not Foreign To Pleadings Can Be Produced During Cross-Examination: Bombay High Court

“Procedural Rules Cannot Prevent Effective Cross-Examination Of A Witness”, In an important ruling on production of documents during cross-examination, the Bombay High Court held that documents which are not foreign to the pleadings can be produced at the stage of cross-examination even if they were not filed along with the plaint or written statement.

Justice Gauri Godse observed that the Code of Civil Procedure itself provides specific exceptions permitting production of documents during cross-examination for confronting a witness or refreshing memory. The Court accordingly set aside the trial court’s order refusing to allow the defendant to produce payment receipts during cross-examination of the plaintiff.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking cancellation of three sale deeds dated 03 April 2012 and a rectification deed dated 10 April 2012. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant no.1 had fraudulently executed the sale deeds in favour of defendant no.2 by misusing a cancelled power of attorney, without any consideration being paid.

The plaintiffs further sought injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and from creating third-party rights in the suit property.

In response, defendant no.1 filed a written statement denying the allegations, asserting that the power of attorney had been executed for consideration and that ₹5 lakhs had been paid to the plaintiffs, for which receipts were issued in the name of plaintiff no.1.

During the trial, when the case was posted for cross-examination of plaintiff no.1, the defendant sought to produce payment receipts to confront the plaintiff regarding the consideration paid. The trial court rejected the application, holding that since the documents were not produced along with the written statement as required under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC, they could not be introduced later.

This order was challenged before the Bombay High Court.

Whether Documents Can Be Produced During Cross-Examination

The High Court examined the provisions of Order VII Rule 14, Order VIII Rule 1A, and Order XIII Rule 1 CPC, which require parties to produce documents relied upon in the suit at the time of filing pleadings or before settlement of issues.

However, the Court pointed out that each of these provisions contains specific exceptions allowing production of documents for the purpose of cross-examination or refreshing a witness’s memory.

Justice Godse observed that:

“The requirement to produce documents along with pleadings does not apply to documents required for cross-examination. Their production does not require leave of the Court.”

Thus, the CPC itself recognises that documents intended solely for effective cross-examination need not necessarily be filed earlier with the pleadings.

Role of Section 145 of Evidence Act and Section 148 of BSA

The Court further explained that cross-examination is governed by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be confronted with previous statements in writing relevant to the matters in issue.

The corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 148) also retains the same principle.

The Court clarified that:

“The Court recording evidence must permit a party to produce a document for cross-examination of a witness on the touchstone of Section 145 of the Evidence Act.”

Once a witness is confronted with such a document, the established practice requires the document to be taken on record and marked as an exhibit, and no prior leave of the court is necessary for this purpose.

Party As Witness: No Distinction

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court decision in Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer, which clarified that there is no distinction between a party to a suit and a witness for the purpose of adducing evidence.

The Supreme Court had held that a party appearing as a witness cannot be treated differently from a witness simpliciter when documents are produced during cross-examination.

Accordingly, the High Court held that documents may be produced even when the witness being cross-examined is the opposite party to the suit.

Documents Must Not Be Foreign To Pleadings

A key limitation highlighted by the Court was that documents produced during cross-examination must not be completely divorced from the pleadings.

In the present case, the defendant’s written statement already contained pleadings regarding payment of ₹5 lakhs towards the consideration amount.

Therefore, the receipts sought to be produced during cross-examination were directly connected with the defence raised in the pleadings.

Justice Godse held:

“So long as the document produced for cross-examination is not completely divorced from or foreign to the pleadings, the same cannot be disallowed.”

Earlier Bombay High Court Judgment Not Binding

The plaintiffs relied on the earlier Bombay High Court decision in Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar v. Raghuvir Sinal Lotlekar, which had held that only documents outside the case of the parties could be confronted during cross-examination.

However, the Court clarified that this judgment was based on unamended provisions of the CPC which existed prior to the 2002 amendments.

Since the statutory framework has changed and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohammed Wahid governs the field, the earlier proposition cannot be treated as a binding precedent under the amended CPC.

Decision of the Court

Applying these principles, the High Court held that:

“the defendant had already pleaded payment of consideration in the written statement,”
“the receipts sought to be produced were directly related to that plea,” and
“the documents were therefore not foreign to the pleadings.”

Consequently, the Court found the trial court’s refusal to permit the production of the receipts to be legally unsustainable.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 08 December 2021, and directed the trial court to permit defendant no.1 to produce the documents listed in Exhibit 118 for confronting plaintiff no.1 during cross-examination.

Conclusion

The judgment clarifies that procedural requirements for filing documents under the CPC cannot be applied in a rigid manner so as to obstruct effective cross-examination.

The Bombay High Court reaffirmed that documents relevant to pleadings may be produced during cross-examination without prior leave of the court, provided they are used for confronting a witness or refreshing memory under Section 145 of the Evidence Act (Section 148 BSA).

Date of Decision: 04 March 2026