Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad 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