9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge/fate of documents produced for the first time during cross-examination and denied by the witness. 2. Status of such documents if retained on record. 3. Whether the party producing the document can prove it during their own evidence if not produced earlier. Summary: 1. Challenge/Fate of Documents Produced During Cross-Examination: The court addressed whether documents produced for the first time during cross-examination and denied by the witness should be retained on the court file or returned to the producing party. It was held that such documents must be retained on the court file to allow the court to consider them at a subsequent stage, even if denied by the witness. Returning the document would prevent the court from assessing its relevance and the witness's response. 2. Status of Retained Documents: The court clarified that documents retained on the court file during cross-examination do not automatically become evidence. The party producing the document is entitled to prove it during their own evidence, notwithstanding its initial denial by the witness. This ensures the element of surprise in cross-examination, which is crucial for eliciting truthful responses. 3. Proving Documents in Own Evidence: The court emphasized that a party can prove a document during their own evidence even if it was not filed earlier, provided it was used to confront a witness during cross-examination. However, this right is subject to the overall scheme of the CPC and evidence law. For instance, if the plaintiff has no right to lead rebuttal evidence, they cannot prove the document subsequently. The court must be cautious to prevent parties from smuggling in documents irrelevant to the witness being cross-examined. Case References: - T.M. Mohana v. V. Kannan: Prior leave of the court is not necessary for producing documents during cross-examination. - Poonam Chawla v. Niranjan Kumar: Highlighted that documents denied during cross-examination do not form part of the record if the defense is struck off. - Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh: Supported the proposition that documents not pleaded cannot be proved. - Haren Krishna kumar Mehta v. Kamla Pribhdas Nebhanani: Rejection of evidence beyond pleadings. - S.M. James v. Dr. Abdul Khair: Only legally admissible documents can be on record. Conclusion: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner/defendant was entitled to put the document in cross-examination and prove it subsequently. The trial court was directed to decide the application u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act in accordance with the legal position outlined. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
|
