Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     Sudden Fight Without Premeditation Led to Fatal Injury, Not Murder: Supreme Court Reduces Conviction from Murder to Culpable Homicide    |     Andhra Pradesh High Court Holds Indefinite Suspension of Bar License Without Reason Violates Natural Justice Principles    |     Statements Recorded Under Section 108 of the Customs Act Do Not Warrant Pre-Arrest Bail: Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Petitioners in Gold Smuggling Case    |     Muslim Law | Delay in Declaring Matrimonial Status Does Not Apply to Divorce Cases: Allahabad HC    |     Absence of Doctor's Certification on Victim's Mental Fitness Makes Dying Declaration Unreliable: Allahabad High Court Acquits Appellants in Dowry Death Case    |     Dying Declaration Can Sustain Conviction Even Without Doctor's Certificate of Fitness: Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Conviction in Dowry Death Case    |     Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Cruelty Without Sufficient Evidence: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Abetment of Suicide and Cruelty    |     Right to Hearing: Petitioners Must Be Heard Before Finalizing FTL of Durgam Cheruvu: Telangana High Court Directs No Demolition Until Decision    |     No Fresh Consent Needed Under Section 50 of NDPS Act Once Accused Elects Search Before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate: Punjab and Haryana High Court    |     Suspicious Circumstances Around the 1993 Will: Wife Declared Dead While Alive: Calcutta HC Voids Probate    |     Extension of Sale Deed Deadline Prima Facie Binding, Time Not Essence of the Contract: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Temporary Injunction in Specific Performance Suit    |     Law Does Not Compel the Impossible : High Court Invokes Doctrine of Impossibility in Pension Eligibility Case    |     Bar Council of India Mandates Criminal Background Checks, Biometric Attendance, and Strict Employment Declarations for Law Students    |     Service Law | Grant of Prosecution Sanction is Not Enough for Sealed Cover: SC Upholds DPC Findings in Favor of IRS Officer    |     Stamp Act | Agreements to Sell with Possession Clauses Are Conveyances and Must Be Stamped Separately: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Directs Immediate Implementation of Electronic Road Safety Monitoring Under Motor Vehicles Act    |     Supreme Court Stays Defamation Proceedings Against Shashi Tharoor, Issues Notice on "Person Aggrieved" Under Section 199 CrPC    |     Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Violates Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in Murder Conspiracy Case    |     Prosecution Failed to Prove Identity of the Exhumed Body: Supreme Court Acquits Police Officers in Custodial Death Case    |    

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.

Similar News