In a groundbreaking verdict, the Supreme Court dismantles distinctions between parties and witnesses, decreeing the admissibility of document production during cross-examination in civil trials. Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol overturned a Bombay High Court judgment that confined document presentation solely to confronting non-party witnesses, diverging from the Supreme Court’s stance.
At the heart of the matter were the interpretations of Order VII, Rule 14(4), Order VIII, Rule 1A(4), and Order XIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Bombay High Court contended that documents could only be introduced during cross-examination of non-party witnesses, excluding plaintiffs or defendants giving testimony. Dismissing this viewpoint as unsustainable, the Supreme Court asserted the absence of a meaningful distinction between parties and witnesses in this context.
The appeal raised two pivotal questions:
a) Does the Code of Civil Procedure recognize a disparity between parties and witnesses within a suit? Does the phrase “plaintiff’s/defendant’s witness” exclude the parties themselves when testifying on their own behalf?
b) Does the law, particularly under Order VII Rule 14, Order VIII Rule 1-A, Order XIII Rule 1, prevent the party conducting cross-examination from presenting documents, with respect to the phrase(s) “plaintiff/defendant’s witness” or “witnesses of the other party,” when cross-examining the opposing party?
The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Karol, rebuffed the High Court’s perspective. The judgment emphasized that both witnesses and parties, when providing evidence, share a common procedural ground. Rejecting the differentiation between a party to a suit and a witness, the Court argued that their functions in the witness box are indistinguishable.
Quoting various legal provisions, the Supreme Court clarified, “witnesses and parties to a suit, for the purposes of adducing evidence, either documentary or oral are on the same footing.”
The verdict, encapsulated in paragraph 26, affirmed that the freedom to produce documents during cross-examination served the interests of both parties involved in the suit. The Court negated the proposition that the law discriminates between parties and witnesses for evidentiary purposes, asserting that such differentiation contradicts legal principles.
However, the judgment delineated the limitation to document confrontation, specifying that it is permissible exclusively during the cross-examination phase of a civil suit. It underscored that such documents must have accompanied the plaint or written statement filed before the court, safeguarding the integrity of the proceedings.
Justice Karol, reiterating the trial’s ultimate aim of truth discovery, delivered a verdict that reshapes the landscape of civil trial procedures.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, while Advocate Dr. R.S. Sundaram appeared for the respondent in the case of Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer and another.
