Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
References:- ["Debi Prasad Rayaguru vs Basanti Mishra - Orissa"]- ["Shubhkaran Singh VS Abhayraj Singh - Supreme Court"]- ["Firoz Islam Sardar, S/o. Lt. Nurul Islam Sardar VS Nazrul Islam Sardar, S/o. Lt. Rohiz Uddin Sardar - Gauhati"]- ["Mir Kasim vs Dhoi Datti - Orissa"]- ["Kotti Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao VS Kotti Venkata Rama Krishna S/o Late Jagannadha Rao - Andhra Pradesh"]
In civil litigation under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the recording of witness evidence is a critical stage. A common query among litigants and lawyers arises: whether it is necessary to take leave of court under Order 18, Rule 9 before filing examination-in-chief of a witness under Order 18, Rule 4 CPC? This question touches on procedural flexibility, court discretion, and the balance between formality and efficient justice delivery.
This blog post breaks down the relevant provisions, analyzes key judicial interpretations, and integrates insights from case law to provide clarity. Note that this is general information based on available legal materials and should not be construed as specific legal advice. Always consult a qualified lawyer for your case, as court practices may vary.
Order 18 Rule 4 CPC outlines the procedure for recording evidence. It mandates that the examination-in-chief of a witness must be in the form of an affidavit, filed by the party tendering the witness. This amendment aims to expedite trials by reducing oral examination time in court.
Key features include:- Affidavit format: Thus, under sub-rule (1) of Order 18, examination-in-chief of every witness must be on Affidavit. Leonard Holding & Trading Pvt. Ltd. VS Satish Dhirajlal Vithlani- Subsequent stages: Cross-examination and re-examination follow orally, unless otherwise directed.- No blanket prior permission: The rule focuses on the method, not preconditions like leave for filing itself.
The rule promotes efficiency: The object of introducing Order XVIII Rule 4 is to save time of the court and to avoid inconvenience and hardship of the witness by prescribing that only mode of giving evidence-in-chief is by filing affidavit. Shree Shree Iswar Satyanarayanjee and Other deities, represented by its shebaits, Sri Lalit Kumar Bagla VS Partha Brothers - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1600
Order 18 Rule 9 CPC generally empowers the court to inspect places or things relevant to the suit, but in procedural contexts, it's often linked to permissions for evidence-related actions, such as recalling witnesses or producing additional evidence in specific scenarios. However, the provided materials do not explicitly detail a mandatory leave requirement under this rule before filing examination-in-chief.
Standard practice interprets procedural rules flexibly, emphasizing justice over rigid technicalities. The absence of direct linkage in key documents suggests no absolute prerequisite.
The key document UMA DEVI VS RAJKUMARI - 1980 0 Supreme(HP) 106 discusses witness examination under Order 18 Rules 3A and 4, stating: The provided document UMA DEVI VS RAJKUMARI - 1980 0 Supreme(HP) 106 discusses the procedure for examining witnesses under Order 18 Rules 3A and 4 CPC, emphasizing that parties can examine themselves or others with the court’s discretion. It clarifies that there is no mandatory requirement to seek permission before examining the first witness, and permission can be sought at a later stage based on reasons presented to the court.
This highlights court discretion rather than a strict mandate. Order 18 Rule 3A CPC: The court’s discretion to permit examination of witnesses at various stages, and that prior permission is not always mandatory UMA DEVI VS RAJKUMARI - 1980 0 Supreme(HP) 106.
Courts prioritize substantive justice. For instance, in contexts involving witness order, Ruma Bhattacharya VS Sumita Banerjee - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 830 notes: A party who wants to appear as a witness in her own case, should so appear before any other witness on her behalf is examined, unless the court for reasons to be recorded, permits her to appear as he.... This underscores recorded reasons for deviations, not blanket prior leave for filing affidavits.
Similarly, re-examination must be oral: Re-examination of witnesses must be conducted orally in court, not via Affidavit, as per the Code of Civil Procedure. Leonard Holding & Trading Pvt. Ltd. VS Satish Dhirajlal Vithlani But for initial examination-in-chief via affidavit, no such prior leave is flagged.
While Order 18 Rule 9 isn't directly dissected, adjacent rules reinforce flexibility:- Order 18 Rule 17: Limits reopening evidence; not for filling lacunae. NASIB KUMAR vs DEV DUTT SHARMA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9395 Order 18 rule 17: 17. ... of the Court, the trial Court is free to consider whether it was necessary to reopen the evidence... Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination...- Order 18 Rule 3A: Party-witnesses typically first, unless permitted otherwise. Malikireddy Vanamala vs Thokala Sampath Reddy - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 68929 Now, the question is if they want to examine a party to the suit as witness before their examination, whether it is compulsory to obtain permission of the Court in terms of Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC.- Right to Begin (Rule 1): Not defeated by Rule 4 affidavit procedure. Manorama Chhotray VS Prafulla Kumar Chhotray - 2014 Supreme(Ori) 16 Therefore, the procedure for adducing evidence in examination-in-chief as provided under Order-18 Rule-4 of CPC cannot defeat rule of evidence conferring right to begin as provided under Order-18 Rule-1 CPC.
These cases show courts allow procedural leeway without mandating prior leave for standard filings.
In practice:- File without leave initially: Parties can generally file the examination-in-chief affidavit under Rule 4 without prior court leave, subject to objections or directions. UMA DEVI VS RAJKUMARI - 1980 0 Supreme(HP) 106- Seek leave if needed: If the court directs or circumstances (e.g., late filing, additional witnesses) arise, permission may be sought later.- Avoid technical pitfalls: Ensure compliance with affidavit requirements to prevent rejection. Courts have discarded non-compliant affidavits but accepted proper ones mandatorily. Sagar Singh Yadav VS Sudama Singh Yadav - 2014 Supreme(MP) 37 Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 16 Rr. 1, 1A and O.18 R. 4 -- plaintiff filed affidavit -- trial Court erred in discarding the affidavit...
Document production during cross may not need Rule 17A leave post-amendments. Nand Kishore VS Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 2336 Hence, the leave of Court that was to be obtained under Order 18, Rule 17A of C.P.C., is now to be obtained under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of C.P.C.
Best practices:1. File affidavits promptly after issues are framed.2. Serve copies on opponents.3. Be prepared for cross-examination scheduling.4. Document reasons if deviating from standard sequence.
Based on the analyzed materials, there is no explicit requirement under Order 18 Rule 9 CPC to seek prior leave of court before filing examination-in-chief under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. The emphasis is on court discretion and procedural efficiency, allowing parties to proceed generally without it, unless directed otherwise. UMA DEVI VS RAJKUMARI - 1980 0 Supreme(HP) 106
Key Takeaways:- Examination-in-chief is via affidavit; no mandatory prior permission for filing.- Court's discretion governs deviations or additional steps.- Verify local practices and orders to avoid issues.- Focus on substantive evidence over technicalities for justice.
For tailored advice, consult a legal professional. Stay informed on CPC amendments for smoother litigation.
In this case, the petitioner sought to quash an order rejecting a plea to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC. ... Neither the trial court nor the High court considered the question whether it was a fit case for exercise of discretion under section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code. ... The parties to the suit cannot take any objection to the question asked nor can they be permitted to cross-examine any wi....
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 18 Rule 17 – Recall of witness – This power can be exercised even ... (Para 7) (B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ... 18 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code came to be rejected. ... Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief#HL....
7.2 Order 18 rule 17: “17. ... of the Court, the trial Court is free to consider whether it was necessary to reopen the evidence and if so, in what manner and to what extent. ... (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” Order XVIII Rule#....
filed under Order 26 Rule 4 CPC. ... After taking several adjournments for cross examination of PW.1, the petitioner filed this petition on 8.6.2018 to issue summons that the registered Will dated 18.9.1992 is necessary for cross examination of PW.1. ... Even if a party voluntarily appears in the witness-box to give evidence in his own favour and deliberately keeps himself away after examination-in-chief#....
Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be resorted to by Smt. Gopa Das. 4. ... Palanisamy reported at (2011) 11 SCC 275, this Court discussed the power of the Court under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC. ... By the order impugned, the learned court allowed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon paym....
The main question which is addressed to this Court against the impugned order is, whether the High Court was right to insist on the examination of the appellant first before the examination of the witnesses to formally prove the will. ... The High Court relying on the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC observed that normal and healthy practice which is adopted by the trial court is, to call upon ....
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 18 Rule 4 - Re-examination of witnesses - The court held that re-examination cannot be ... Thus, under sub-rule (1) of Order 18, examination-in-chief of every witness must be on Affidavit. ... There is no provision in the Code which permits filing of Affidavit-in-lieu of examination by a witness. Legislature has made conscious distinction between #HL_START....
Now, the question is if they want to examine a party to the suit as witness before their examination, whether it is compulsory to obtain permission of the Court in terms of Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC. 22. ... The said portion of the order was set aside. The Court permitted the defendant to file affidavit of witness whom he wishes to examine first, thereafter that witness is examined, the defendant can file aff....
in chief by putting exhibit mark upon mis-construing Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ... The object of introducing Order XVIII Rule 4 is to save time of the court and to avoid inconvenience and hardship of the witness by prescribing that only mode of giving evidence-in-chief is by filing affidavit. ... (ii) Whether the learned Judge in the First ....
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 18, Rule 17 - Revision petition against trial court's ... Court emphasized the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 PCA are not for filling lacunae but for clarifying ambiguities in evidence. ... ... ... Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the grounds for witness recall under Order 18 Rule 17 must not serve merely to ... It is obvious that only after cross-examination of the witn....
However, objection was raised that the questioned document is not stamped and registered and therefore not admissible. During the course of cross-examination, defendant sought leave of the Court to confront the plaintiff No.1 with the aforesaid document dated 16.1.1997. 4. Plaintiff No.1 filed examination-in-chief under Order 18 rule 4 of CPC.
Therefore, the procedure for adducing evidence in examination-in-chief as provided under Order-18 Rule-4 of CPC cannot defeat rule of evidence conferring right to begin as provided under Order-18 Rule-1 CPC. Order-18 Rule-1 of CPC refers to right of parties to begin whereas Order-18 Rule-4 of CPC deals with the requirement to file affidavit as prescribed under the said Rule which caters to the convenience of the parties and is aimed at expeditious disposal of cases.
Order 18, Rule 1 of CPC refers to right of parties to begin whereas Order 18, Rule 4 of CPC deals with the requirement to file affidavit as prescribed under the said Rule which caters to the convenience of the parties and is aimed at expeditious disposal of cases. Therefore, the procedure for adducing evidence in examination-in-chief as provided under Order 18, Rule 4 of CPC cannot defeat rule of evidence conferring right to begin as provided under Order 18, Rule 1 CPC.
In this factual backdrop, in the considered opinion of this Court, para 17 of the judgment of Salem Advocate Bar Association (supra) will apply. Thus, as per para 17 of the said judgment, in my opinion, the Court below has erred in discarding the affidavit and directing the plaintiff to enter the witness box to depose his statement. As per the aforesaid, it is clear that the conjoint reading of Order 16 Rule 1-A and Order 18 Rule 4(1) CPC makes it mandatory for the Court below to record examination-in-chief in the form of an affidavit and it need not be recorded in the shape of exa....
Hence, the leave of Court that was to be obtained under Order 18, Rule 17A of C.P.C., is now to be obtained under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of C.P.C. Therefore, the plaintiff would be entitled to tender the document in evidence even if he failed to tender them along with plaint or on account of omission of the entry in the list for tendering evidence at the hearing of the suit.
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
