Subsequent Declaration Of Juvenility Does Not Vitiate Conviction On Merits: Supreme Court Borrowers Cannot Ignore Bank Accounting Systems And Suspense Accounts To Claim Arbitrary Reductions In Loan Dues: Supreme Court Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits Trademark Infringement: Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Use Of Brand Name Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court 'Interest And Welfare Of Child Would Be Best Served': Supreme Court Invokes Parens Patriae In Contempt Plea; Revokes Own Custody Order Mere Absence From MCA Records Cannot Absolve Accused Under Section 138 NI Act If Prima Facie Role Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court Incomplete Or Defective Real Estate Application Cannot Claim Deemed Registration Under Section 5(2) Of RERA Act: Orissa High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Testator's Character & Prior Gifts Justify Unequal Distribution': Madras High Court Upholds Holographic Will Minority Status Cannot Arrest Limitation Period For Appeal If Minor Was Represented By Natural Guardian In Original Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Admission Of Property Boundaries In Family Partition Deeds Destroys Coparceners' Claim That Land Remains Joint Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Mesne Profits Must Reflect Open Market Letting Value Rather Than Static Contractual Rates: Delhi High Court Law Graduates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within Two Years Cannot Practice In Any Court, Tribunal Or Revenue Authority: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Slams 'Growing Tendency' To Bypass GST Appeals, Says 'Natural Justice' Not A Blanket Excuse For Writ Petitions Proportionate Cost Only Can Be Awarded On Decreed Amount, Not On Total Plaint Valuation: Kerala 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