The Supreme Court has clarified that there is no distinction between a party to a suit acting as a witness and a witness simpliciter in the proceedings. The court emphasized that the production of documents by both a party to the suit and a witness during cross-examination is permissible. This clarification was made in an appeal against the Bombay High Court's judgment, which had addressed conflicting decisions in the cases of Vinayak M Dessai v. Ulhas N. Naik and Ors. (2017 SCCOnLine Bom 8515) and Purushottam v. Gajanan (2012 SCCOnLine Bom 1176).
A two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol highlighted that, according to the provisions considered, there is no substantial difference between a party to a suit and a witness simpliciter. Both are allowed to produce documents during cross-examination, as affirmed by the court.
The case involved questions framed by a single judge in response to conflicting decisions, particularly regarding whether there is a difference between a party to a suit and a witness in a suit. The court examined the phrases "plaintiff's/defendant's witness" to determine if they exclude the plaintiff or defendant themselves when acting as witnesses in their own cause.
The court also delved into the legal provisions such as Order VII Rule 14, Order VIII Rule 1-A, and Order XIII Rule 1, questioning whether these provisions prevent a party undertaking cross-examination from producing documents for that purpose.
In addressing these issues, the court referred to the objectives of civil procedure rules, emphasizing equality of parties, cost-saving, proportionate case handling, expeditious and fair resolution, and appropriate allocation of court resources. These objectives are meant to guide the interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
The court rejected the notion that a mere mention of similar functions in different provisions does not equate them. It asserted that the distinction between a witness in the witness box and a party appearing as a witness in the witness box lacks a solid foundation.
According to the court, both a witness and a party in the witness box perform the same function, and the phrase "so far as it is applicable" in Order XVI Rule 21 does not imply a difference in function. The court dismissed the notion that the term "witness" excludes a party to the suit, namely the plaintiff or the defendant appearing before the court to provide evidence.
The freedom to produce documents for cross-examination and refreshing the memory serves the purpose for both parties to the suit, the court noted. It emphasized that being precluded from effectively questioning and receiving answers from either party with the aid of documents would compromise the veracity of their claims, jeopardizing the proceedings.
The court concluded that the law does not differentiate between a party to a suit and a witness for evidentiary purposes. It highlighted the importance of pleading arguments for adjudication and affirmed that what is not pleaded cannot be argued. In light of these considerations, the court held that there is no distinction between a party to a suit as a witness and a witness simpliciter, allowing the production of documents for both at the cross-examination stage within the bounds of the law.
TAGS: Supreme Court party to suit witness simpliciter suit proceedings cross-examination documents judgment