Documents pleaded but not produced with written statement can be introduced during cross-examination of plaintiff's witness without leave if relevant for contradiction and not foreign to pleadings, per CPC exceptions and Evidence Act Section 145.

JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

Basic Facts:

1. This petition is filed by defendant no. 1 to challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting his application to produce documents to confront plaintiff no. 1 during his cross-examination. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are the original plaintiffs who filed the suit for the cancellation of three sale deeds dated 3^rd April 2012 and the deed of rectification dated 10^th April 2012 executed by defendant no. 1 as a constituted attorney of the plaintiffs, in favour of defendant no. 2. The plaintiffs also prayed for a decree of injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs’ possession of the suit property and creating any third-party interest in the suit property. Respondent no. 2 is the original defendant no 2.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner (‘defendant no.1’):

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner (‘defendant no.1’) submitted that the plaintiffs have alleged that, based on a cancelled power of attorney, defendant no. 1 got three sale deeds and one correction deed executed in favour of defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 1 filed the written statement and contended that the registered power of attorney was for consideration and an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs was paid to plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, and receipts were issued in the name of plaintiff no. 1. Defendant no. 1 had filed an application below Exhibit 113 for amendment of the written statement to add pleadings regarding the particulars of cash vouchers and the amount of consideration. The application was rejected as the trial had commenced, and the suit was posted for the cross-examination of plaintiff no. 1. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 filed an application to produce the receipts as per the list in evidence to confront plaintiff no. 1 during his cross-examination.

3. Learned counsel for defendant no.1 submitted that defendant no. 1 has pleaded in paragraphs 22 and 24 of the written statement regarding payment made towards the consideration amount. Since the receipts were not available with defendant no. 1 at the time of filing the written statement, the particulars of the receipts were not pleaded, and the receipts were not produced. However, in view of the pleadings regarding the payment of the consideration amount to the plaintiffs, defendant no. 1 was entitled to confront plaintiff no. 1 with the receipts during his cross- examination. Hence, defendant no. 1 is entitled to produce the receipts in evidence to confront plaintiff no. 1 during his cross-examination.

4. To support his submissions, learned counsel for defendant no. 1 relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs Nilofer and another , (2024) 2 SCC 144 . He submits that so long as the document is produced for the limited purpose of the effective cross-examination or to refresh the memory of the witness, and the document is not foreign to the pleadings made, such production of the document during the cross-examination can be permitted. He submits that it is a well-established legal principle that procedural rules are handmaid of justice and cannot be applied with a hyper technical approach, and thus the tria