IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.
In The Goods Of Kanhaiyalal Sikhwal - Appellant
Versus
In The Goods Of Savitri Devi Sikhwal (Dec) - Respondent
T.S./7/2005 In T.S./8/2005
Decided On : 28-07-2025
.
JUDGMENT :
BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.
The Court: A question of law was raised by the Learned Advocates for the parties as to the statutory requirement to disclose a document before the same being relied in evidence.
Learned Advocate representing the defendant in T.S. 7/2005 and plaintiff in T.S. 8 of 2005 submits that it is not necessary to disclose the document prior to being relied and Learned Advocate representing plaintiff in T.S. 7/2005 and Defendant in T.S. 8/2005 submits that the document ought to have been disclosed.
Learned Advocate for the Defendant in T.S. 7/2005 submits that witness is not the defendant or plaintiff and is deposing without being summoned thus document need not be disclosed. Learned Advocate further submits that disclosure is required to be done by the parties and not by the witnesses. Learned Advocate also submits that when any party is deposing rules are to be followed and it is not applicable to witnesses. Learned Advocate relies upon the provisions contained in chapter XIV of High Court Rules and Order XVI Rule 1 Sub-Rule 3 CPC and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidh yadhar Vs. Manikrao and Anr reported in 1999 (3) SCC P-573.
Learned Advocate for the plaintiff in T.S. 7/2005 submits that the dispute is not production of document but method of producing document. Learned Advocate further submits that the witness who intends to produce a document is not a summoned witness but is deposing on behalf of the defendant. Learned Advocate also submits that no document can be introduced without disclosing Learned Advocate relies upon chapter IX Rule 1, Chapter X Rule 1 and Chapter XI Rule 1 and 2 of the Original Side Rules and Order VIII Rule 1A CPC. Learned Advocate also relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahammed Abdul Wahid Vs. Nilofer and Anr. reported in (2024) 2 SCC P-144.
Before proceeding to decide the material in issue it is necessary to consider the provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 1A CPC. Order XI Rule 1 and 2 CPC, and Order XVI Rule 1 Sub-rule-3 CPC.
Rule 1A of Order VIII CPC provides as follows:
Rule 1-A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him – 1) where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter claim he shall enter such document in a list and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof to be filed with the written statement.
2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant he shall wherever possible state in whose possession or power it is.
3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule but is not so produced shall not without the leave of the Court be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document:-
a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses or
b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.
Order XI- Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure Provides as follows:
1. Discovery by interrogatories-In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer: provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose. Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness.
2. Particular interrogatories to be submitted.- on an application f
The Court clarified that parties and witnesses are subject to similar disclosure requirements regarding document production in civil procedures.
(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 ca....
A party to a suit cannot be equated with a witness.
Parties in a civil suit can be summoned as witnesses under the CPC, but compelling testimony without sufficient cause violates procedural norms.
A party to a suit can call another party as a witness under specific circumstances, but must provide a valid justification for doing so according to procedural rules.
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, p....
The court allows the plaintiff to disclose additional documents based on reasonable cause for non-disclosure, emphasizing that such discretion may be exercised even after initial pleadings in undefen....
The court upheld the denial of video evidence in cross-examination due to non-compliance with disclosure rules and failure to provide an authenticity certificate as required under Section 65B of the ....
A party to a suit cannot compel the opponent to testify on their behalf as a matter of right; the trial court has discretion to allow such summons based on the necessity and context of the case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.