Order VIII Rule 1A CPC Not A Bar To Producing Documents For Cross-Examining Witness: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that a defendant is not required to file a separate application for the production of documents that are sought to be used for confronting a witness during cross-examination, provided such documents are not foreign to the pleadings in the case. The Court observed that the Civil Procedure Code expressly carves out an exception permitting production of documents...
The Bombay High Court has held that a defendant is not required to file a separate application for the production of documents that are sought to be used for confronting a witness during cross-examination, provided such documents are not foreign to the pleadings in the case. The Court observed that the Civil Procedure Code expressly carves out an exception permitting production of documents at the stage of cross-examination for the purposes of contradicting a witness or refreshing the witness's memory.
Justice Gauri Godse was hearing a writ petition filed challenging the order of the Civil Judge, vide which the defendant's application seeking permission to produce certain receipts to confront plaintiff No.1 during cross-examination was rejected. The trial court rejected this application, holding that the documents had not been produced earlier in compliance with Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant contended that the receipts were relevant to the defence already pleaded in the written statement and were intended to be used only for confronting the plaintiff during cross-examination.
The High Court examined the statutory scheme under Orders VII, VIII and XIII of the CPC and noted that while parties are generally required to produce documents relied upon by them along with the pleadings, the provisions expressly contain exceptions allowing production of documents at the stage of cross-examination, provided such a document is relevant for the cross-examination of the witness as set out in Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It observed:
“… the Court must allow a party to contradict a witness by showing him his previous statement, which was not produced earlier, provided it is relevant to the matters in question… the document must be taken on record, and for doing so, leave of the Court is not required.”
The Court further referred to Section 145 of the Evidence Act (Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), which permits a witness to be confronted with previous written statements relevant to the matters in issue if the previous statement is relevant to the matters in question in the proceedings in which the evidence is being recorded.
The Court observed that the documents sought to be produced during the cross-examination of plaintiff no.1 for confronting him with the documents would fall under the law governing the cross-examination of a witness as provided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act (Section 148 of BSA), read with the exceptions provided under the procedural law for production of documents under the CPC.
The Court held that the defendant was not required to file a separate application for the production of documents, as he is entitled to produce the documents to confront the witness of the other party, at the time of cross-examination, by relying upon the exceptions provided under the Order VIII and XIII of the CPC and the principles set out in Section 145 of the Evidence Act (Section 148 of BSA).
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of the trial court, and directed that defendant No.1 be permitted to produce the documents listed along with the application in order to confront plaintiff No.1 during cross-examination.
Case Title: Jijabhau Dyaneshwar Temgire v. Gangaram Khandu Temgire & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 8080 of 2022]