Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Legal Status of Affidavit as Evidence An affidavit of examination-in-chief, sworn before a competent authority (Oath Commissioner, Notary, Judicial Officer), is considered on oath and constitutes valid evidence. Such affidavits do not cease to be legal evidence merely because they are submitted in lieu of oral examination, provided the witness remains available for cross-examination. The court's primary concern is whether the witness can be cross-examined; if so, the affidavit remains admissible.References: ["Ram Gopal Since Deceased VS Sardari Lal Handa Since Deceased - Punjab and Haryana"], ["D. Komala VS S. D. Ramalingam - Madras"], ["Chandrahas Chandrakant Charekar-joshi VS Geeta Panditrao Aswar - Bombay"]
Cross-Examination Rights The right to cross-examine a witness who has submitted an affidavit is preserved. The court can permit cross-examination in open court even if the examination-in-chief was by affidavit. The opportunity for cross-examination is essential to test the credibility of the witness; thus, affidavits are admissible evidence only if the witness can be cross-examined.References: ["Ram Gopal Since Deceased VS Sardari Lal Handa Since Deceased - Punjab and Haryana"], ["D. Komala VS S. D. Ramalingam - Madras"], ["Chandrahas Chandrakant Charekar-joshi VS Geeta Panditrao Aswar - Bombay"]
Rejection of Affidavit Evidence An affidavit may be rejected if the court finds that the witness was not available for cross-examination or if the affidavit was filed improperly (e.g., without the witness being present or in violation of procedural rules). Also, if the affidavit is filed without the witness's knowledge or consent, or if the witness denies knowledge of its contents, the court may reject such evidence.References: ["Ponari Venkata Rao S/o. Danda Sai VS Katamreddy Malakonda Reddy S/o. Babi Reddy - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Tapan Kalita, S/o. Late Tankeswar Kalita vs L.B. Medi Services Pvt Ltd. - Gauhati"], ["Basavaramatarakam Memorial Medical Trust, Hyderabad vs Nandamuri Lakshmi Parvathi - Telangana"]
Implication of Witness's Statement in Cross-Examination If a witness states during cross-examination that he does not know the contents of his affidavit, the court might consider this as a factor for rejecting the affidavit or not giving it evidentiary weight. The court must ensure the witness's availability for cross-examination to uphold the affidavit's admissibility.References: ["Ponari Venkata Rao S/o. Danda Sai VS Katamreddy Malakonda Reddy S/o. Babi Reddy - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Tapan Kalita, S/o. Late Tankeswar Kalita vs L.B. Medi Services Pvt Ltd. - Gauhati"]
Legal Precedents and Principles Courts have consistently held that affidavits of examination-in-chief are valid evidence if the witness is available for cross-examination. Recalling witnesses or denying cross-examination rights without valid reasons can lead to the rejection of the affidavit evidence. The courts emphasize fairness and the opportunity for the adverse party to cross-examine the witness.References: ["Saiyyad Shoeb Ali S/o Saiyyad Sadik Ali VS State of C. G. through Station House Officer, Police Station – Kotwali, Raipur (CG) - Chhattisgarh"], ["Ramji Rai VS Champa Rai - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Chandrahas Chandrakant Charekar-joshi VS Geeta Panditrao Aswar - Bombay"]
In civil litigation, affidavits play a crucial role in presenting evidence efficiently, especially for examination-in-chief under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). But what happens when a witness, during cross-examination, states: I take no oath for the Affidavit for Examination-in-chief, Ext. A/1? Does this single statement doom the affidavit, rendering it inadmissible? This is a common dilemma in Indian courts, and understanding the nuances can prevent procedural missteps.
This post breaks down the legal position under CPC, drawing from key provisions like Order XVIII Rule 4 and Order XIX, supported by case law. We'll explore whether such affidavits can be rejected outright and what courts typically consider. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Under CPC provisions, an affidavit filed as examination-in-chief cannot be rejected solely because the witness later claims in cross-examination that they took no oath. If the affidavit was properly sworn before a competent authority—like a notary or oath commissioner—it remains valid evidence. The subsequent oral statement affects credibility or weight, not admissibility. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923
Key points include:- Affidavits are sworn evidence when properly executed before a competent officer. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923- A cross-examination denial does not invalidate it by itself. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923- Courts focus on procedural compliance at filing, not later contradictions unless fraud is proven. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923
This aligns with the intent of Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC, which mandates examination-in-chief by affidavit to expedite trials. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923
Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC requires examination-in-chief to be on affidavit, sworn before an authorized person. This imparts the oath, making it equivalent to oral testimony subject to cross-examination. The affidavit's validity hinges on:- Proper swearing by the deponent.- Certification by a competent authority (e.g., notary). Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923
As noted, An affidavit in evidence is considered sworn evidence if it is properly sworn before a competent authority. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923
In related contexts, courts have emphasized that affidavits replace oral chief exams but must meet Order XIX standards. For instance, if the affiant didn't appear before the oath commissioner, it may not qualify as a true affidavit. Kulwant Kaur Padda VS State Bank Of Patiala - 2011 Supreme(P&H) 545 However, a routine cross-exam denial doesn't trigger this scrutiny without evidence of defect.
The statement I take no oath for the affidavit during cross-exam raises doubts but doesn't automatically disqualify the document. Courts view it as:- A credibility issue, not a procedural bar. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923- Insufficient alone to negate prior proper swearing. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923
The statement in cross-examination does not, by itself, negate the fact that the affidavit was sworn properly at the time of filing. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923
Supporting this, precedents affirm that examination-in-chief via affidavit remains legal evidence until cross-exam rights are closed. Since a witness who has given his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit has to make himself available for cross-examination in the witness box, unless defendant's right to cross examine him has been closed, such evidence (examination-in-chief) does not cease to be legal evidence. D.KOMALA vs S.D. RAMALINGAM - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 40666
Rejection requires specific flaws:- Improper swearing (e.g., not before competent officer). Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923- Fabrication, fraud, or coercion. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923- Non-compliance with formalities. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923
Mere oral denial isn't enough. Courts assess the affidavit's certification and context. In summary proceedings, cross-exam isn't routine; affidavits suffice unless necessity is shown. Mahendra Pal Sharma VS Prescribed Authority - 2023 Supreme(UK) 589 In summary proceedings under Act No. 13 of 1972, cross-examination cannot be claimed as a matter of course. The Act does not mandate oral evidence and allows parties to prove their case through affidavits. Mahendra Pal Sharma VS Prescribed Authority - 2023 Supreme(UK) 589
Order XIX Rules 1-2 underscore mandatory cross-exam opportunities for affidavit witnesses, but non-production doesn't auto-reject if properly filed. Resources International, (Registered Partnership Firm) VS Ana Bertha do Rego E Fernandes In terms of Rules 1 and 2 of Order XIX of the CPC, there is no discretion left in the Court insofar as the cross-examination of the witness is concerned as in terms of the said provision, unless such a witness can be produced for cross-examination, the Court cannot authorise the evidence of such witness to be given by the affidavit. Resources International, (Registered Partnership Firm) VS Ana Bertha do Rego E Fernandes
While generally safe, exceptions exist:- Proven non-swearing before authority: Rejected as inadmissible. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923- Fraud/coercion evidence: Liable for exclusion. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923- Inconsistent contents warranting scrutiny. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923
In debt recovery cases, tribunals liberally allow cross-exam if necessary for justice, interpreting it broadly. The expression 'necessary' should be given reasonably liberal interpretation as it is a part of procedural law. Sonu Textiles, Mumbai VS Punjab National Bank, Mumbai - 2007 Supreme(Bom) 1467
If an affidavit lacks the deponent's physical presence or proper attestation, it's invalid. Admittedly, affiant was not in India and had not appeared before the Oath Commissioner—Held; it is not an affidavit in the eyes of law. Kulwant Kaur Padda VS State Bank Of Patiala - 2011 Supreme(P&H) 545
Post-2002 CPC amendments, affidavits streamline but preserve cross-exam. Courts permit it when vital for adjudication, especially amid disputes over documents or facts. In one case, liberty was granted to cross-examine bank managers due to contradictions. Sonu Textiles, Mumbai VS Punjab National Bank, Mumbai - 2007 Supreme(Bom) 1467
Affidavits under Order XVIII Rule 4 are prepared per Order XIX, with oaths per Section 139(b). Oral chief exams are obsolete. Kulwant Kaur Padda VS State Bank Of Patiala - 2011 Supreme(P&H) 545
To safeguard affidavits:- Ensure swearing before competent officers with certification.- Prepare witnesses for cross-exam; contradictions impact weight, not admissibility.- Seek court verification if challenged.- Base objections on evidence, not mere statements. K. K. Velusamy VS N. Palanisamy - 2011 2 Supreme 667
The court should verify whether the affidavit was properly sworn before a competent officer at the time of filing. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923
In essence, affidavits remain robust evidence tools unless clear defects emerge. This balances efficiency with fairness, as courts prioritize substantive justice. For tailored guidance, engage legal experts—procedural pitfalls vary by facts.
References:1. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923: Core CPC analysis on affidavits.2. K. K. Velusamy VS N. Palanisamy - 2011 2 Supreme 667: Admissibility discussions.3. Mahendra Pal Sharma VS Prescribed Authority - 2023 Supreme(UK) 589, D.KOMALA vs S.D. RAMALINGAM - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 40666, Resources International, (Registered Partnership Firm) VS Ana Bertha do Rego E Fernandes, Kulwant Kaur Padda VS State Bank Of Patiala - 2011 Supreme(P&H) 545, Sonu Textiles, Mumbai VS Punjab National Bank, Mumbai - 2007 Supreme(Bom) 1467: Supporting case insights.
#CPCAffidavit #LegalEvidence #CrossExamination
Where the examination-in-chief of a witness is produced in the form of an affidavit, such affidavit is always sworn before the Oath Commissioner or the Notary or Judicial Officer or any other person competent to administer oath. The examination-in-chief is, thus, on oath already. ... Since a witness....
When this being the truth of the legal matter and when the witness said to his own counsel that he did not know the contents of his examination-in-chief affidavit, he was still tendered for cross-examination. ... His own counsel then asked him whether he knew contents of evidence affidavit. The reply of the #HL_START....
Substituted proviso reads as follows: “Provided that if it appears to the Court, whether at the instance of either party or otherwise and whether before or after the filing of such affidavit, that the production of such witness for cross-examination is necessary and his attendance ... an observation was made that in a case where an affidavit is filed the veracity or cre....
in the suit was not given an adequate opportunity for cross-examination of the plaintiff witness No.1. ... While the said petition was pending, the petitioner herein who was the defendant filed a petition bearing petition No.4331/2022 seeking expunging of the entire examination-in-chief of the plaintiff witness No.1 as well as the cross#HL_EN....
Provided that where it appears to the Court that either party bona fide desires the production of a witness for cross-examination, and that such witness can be produced, an order shall not be made authorizing the evidence of such witness to be given by affidavit. ... of cross-examination of the deponent could not ....
Where the examination-in-chief of a witness is produced in the form of an affidavit, such affidavit is always sworn before the Oath Commissioner or the Notary or Judicial Officer or any other person competent to administer oath. The examination-in-chief is, thus, on oath already. ... Since a witness....
Since a witness who has given his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit has to make himself available for cross-examination in the witness box, unless defendant's right to cross examine him has been closed, such evidence (examination-in-chief) does not cease to be legal evidence.” ... Where ....
DW 3, who was an identifying witness also in Ext. B-2, specifically stated that he had not signed as an identifying witness in respect of Ext. B-2 and also that he did not know about the signature in Ext. B-2. ... Whereas in the chief examination, it is the contention of P.W.1, that the attesting witnesses whereabouts are no....
Once the witness was examined in-chief and cross-examined fully, such witness should not have been recalled and re-examined to deny the evidence he had already given before the court, even though that witness had given an inconsistent statement before any other court or forum subsequently. ... Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC for recall....
Under the amended provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, the examination-in-chief of the witness has been replaced by the provisions for fling the affidavit. The object behind the amendment to order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC is to ensure speedy trial. ... Since a witness who has given his examination-in-chief....
Further in Ramdeo vs. State of Rajasthan, 1964 R.L.W. page 264 -it was held that a judge should not be haunted by the idea that there was no ruling or precedent to guide him in estimating from the material produced before him, the evidence to admit from relevancy for appreciation. It is to mean affidavit can be taken as chief examination evidence by Court and it is therefrom to that chief examination the provisions of the law of evidence guided by the Evidence Act automatically apply. (d) Need....
That in terms of Rules 1 and 2 of Order XIX of the CPC, there is no discretion left in the Court insofar as the cross-examination of the witness is concerned as in terms of the said provision, unless such a witness can be produced for cross-examination, the Court cannot authorise the evidence of such witness to be given by the affidavit. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on a catena of judgments of the Apex Court which have been referred to in the impugned order as a....
The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on a catena of judgments of the Apex Court which have been referred to in the impugned order as also the latest judgment on the said aspect reported in (2013)4 SCC 465 in the matter of Ayub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra. That in terms of Rules 1 and 2 of Order XIX of the C.P.C., there is no discretion left in the Court insofar as the cross-examination of the witness is concerned as in terms of the said provision, unless such....
6. Since Order 18 Rule 4(1) of the CPC provides that in every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence, the oral evidence in examination-in-chief is replaced by an affidavit which is to be prepared in terms of Order 19 of the CPC and oath on affidavit is to be administered in terms of Section 139(b) of the CPC. In this case, as the oath is administered b....
The discretion vested in the Tribunal is in addition to the fact that in terms of Rule 12 (8) the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 shall apply to a certified copy of an entry in a Banker's book. Under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), examination-in-chief of a witness shall be by way of an affidavit and such evidence of the witness is to be tendered necessarily for cross-examination and re-examination, as the case may....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
