Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Parties to a Suit and Witnesses on Same Footing for Document Production in Cross-Examination: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified a significant procedural aspect in civil litigation. The Court, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, has pronounced that “for the purposes of evidence, parties to a suit and witnesses are on the same footing,” specifically in the context of producing documents during cross-examination. This ruling came as the apex court adjudicated on Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14445 of 2021.

The appeal, filed by Mohammed Abdul Wahid against respondents Nilofer & Anr., challenged the Bombay High Court’s interpretation of certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The crux of the matter revolved around whether a differentiation exists between a party to a suit and a witness regarding the production of documents during cross-examination.

In their detailed judgment, the Supreme Court observed that this distinction, as interpreted previously, does not align with the procedural law’s intent. The Court stated, “This understanding negates the interpretation that a party and a witness are different in the context of producing documents during cross-examination.” This observation is pivotal, as it shapes the practice of civil suits, especially regarding the fairness of the trial process and the opportunity for parties to present all relevant evidence.

The ruling also underscores the Court’s approach to interpreting procedural laws, where practical implications for the fair conduct of trials are given prominence. The judgment elaborates on this, asserting that “the production of documents at the stage of cross-examination for both a party to the suit and a witness is permissible within law.” This principle, as laid down by the Supreme Court, aims to balance the need for a comprehensive presentation of evidence with the principles of a fair trial.

The implications of this judgment are far-reaching, influencing the conduct of civil litigation across the country. By clarifying the equal treatment of parties and witnesses in the context of document production during cross-examination, the Supreme Court has streamlined an important aspect of the civil procedural law.

Date of Decision: 14th December 2023

MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHID  VS NILOFER & ANR.

Latest Legal News