spinner

No distinction: Party as witness = Witness alone; Both present documents in cross-exam. - Supreme Court

Last Updated: 16-12-2023 08:27:53am
No distinction: Party as witness = Witness alone; Both present documents in cross-exam. - Supreme Court

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


Latest Posts

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoners' Right to Legal Aid in Landmark Ruling

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoner...

Supreme Court’s Verdict in Lalta Prasad Vaish & Sons vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court’s Verdict in L...

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Structure for Artificers in Indian Navy

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Stru...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against HDFC Bank in Locker Operation Dispute

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Agai...

Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Insolvency Proceedings: Vidyasagar Prasad vs UCO Bank

Supreme Court Ruling on Corpor...

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode's Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashod...

Supreme Court Resolves Lease Dispute between Central Warehousing Corporation and Sidhartha Tiles

Supreme Court Resolves Lease D...

Supreme Court Denies Interest on Delayed Pension for

Supreme Court Denies Interest ...