IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Witnesses and parties to a suit, for the purposes of adducing evidence, either documentary or oral are on same footing.
(2) Production of documents for both a party to suit and a witness as the case may be, at the stage of cross-examination, is permissible within law.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Karol, J.)

Leave Granted.

2. In adjudicating this appeal, the thought to be borne foremost in mind is that every trial is a search of truth. This purpose is succinctly captured in the following terms in American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, 2007 :

“The purpose of trial is to determine the validity of the allegations. The objective is to secure a fair and impartial administration of justice between the parties to the litigation and not the achievement of a hearing wholly free from errors. Once a civil action has been instituted and issue is joined upon the pleadings, there must be a trial on the issue before a judgment may be rendered.

Trial is not a contest between lawyers but a presentation of facts to which the law may be applied to resolve the issues between the parties and to determine their rights. It is also not a sport; it is an inquiry into the truth, in which the general public has an interest.”

It would be useful to also refer to the objectives in framing rules for conducting civil proceedings. The Halsbury’s Law of England state the following overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Rules:

(i) ensuring that the parties are on equal footing;

(ii) saving expense;

(iii) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate:

(a) to the amount of money involved;

(b) to the importance of the case;

(c) to the complexity of the issues; and

(d) to the financial position of each party;

(iv) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and

(v) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; and

(vi) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.

The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.

Undoubtedly, perhaps unquestionably, the same objectives guide the interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

3. In this search for truth, while placing these rules or in the case of our country, the Code, in highest regard, on the role of a judge, we may benefit from Lord Denning’s observations in Jones v. National Coal Board, 1957 2 QB 55 where his Lordship remarked:

“The Judge’s part in all this is to hearken to the evidence, only himself asking questions of witnesses when it is necessary to clear up any point that has been overlooked or left obscure; to see that the advocates behave themselves seemly and keep to the rules laid down by law, to exclude irrelevancies and discourage reputation, to make sure by wise intervention that he follows, the points that the advocates are making and asses their oral, and at the end to make up his mind where the truth lies. If he goes beyond this he drops the mental of a judge and assumes the robe of an advocate, and the change does not become his well”.

THE CONFLICT

4. This appeal takes exception to a judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay²[WP No. 7717/2019 & 6931/2019; (Hereinafter, the Impugned Judgment)] (Nagpur Bench) by which the Division Bench had answered three questions framed by a Learned Single Judge of that Court in view of the two allegedly conflicting decisions, viz. Vinayak M Dessai v. Ulhas N. Naik and Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8515 and Purushottam v. Gajanan, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1176.

5. In Purushottam (supra) the Learned Single Judge had observed:

“8. Therefore, in my opinion, as long as, the judgment and order in Writ Petition No. 869 of 1997 is in force and admittedly not challenged by either of the parties, it was not open for the trial Court to allow production of documents to confront the original defendant i.e. the petitioner herein. It is different matter if the production is allowed for confronting the witnesses of the party. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion about the said aspects and it is left open for the parties to take appropriate proceeding in that respect. However, as conclude