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…!
Summoning Documents in the Midst of Examination - Main points and insights
Under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC, a party can summon any person, including the opposite party, as a witness for examination or cross-examination ["Narne Estates Pvt Ltd vs N.Gopal Naidu and 4 Others - Telangana"], ["M/s Name Estates Pvt Ltd vs N Copal Naidu And4 Others - Telangana"]. This indicates that during the trial, a party has the right to summon the other party or a third party to produce documents or testify, even in the midst of examination or cross-examination.
The Court's power to summon a party or third parties for documents or testimony is generally exercised when necessary for justice, but such summons must not be an abuse of process. For example, courts have held that summoning the opposite party or third-party witnesses is permissible when relevant to the case, but the Court may refuse if it considers the request as unnecessary or an abuse ["M/s Name Estates Pvt Ltd vs N Copal Naidu And4 Others - Telangana"], ["Kattekola Dhana Laxmi vs Surakanti Narsi Redy - Telangana"].
The ability to summon documents from third parties is explicitly recognized under Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC, which enables the Court to summon any person, stranger or party, to produce documents when deemed necessary ["Kattekola Dhana Laxmi vs Surakanti Narsi Redy - Telangana"], ["Sidhkaran VS Manjulata - Rajasthan"].
However, the Court's discretion is exercised based on the relevance and necessity of the documents or witnesses, and the timing of such applications is important. For instance, objections can be raised if the documents are sought at a late stage or if their production is not justified ["Sidhkaran VS Manjulata - Rajasthan"], ["Sampurna Builders vs A.Kiran Kumar, S/O A.Phaniraj - Karnataka"].
It is generally understood that examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination are facets of trial that can involve witnesses called by either party, and parties can also call upon the other party to give evidence or produce documents relevant to their case ["Ramaniyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd. vs Gunda Ramani - Madras"], ["Ramaniyam Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs Gunda Ramani - Madras"]. Nonetheless, the Court does not have an absolute obligation to summon the opposite party for cross-examination unless circumstances justify it.
Analysis and Conclusion
During the examination-in-chief, a party can indeed summon documents in possession of third parties through applications under Order XVI Rule 14, provided the documents are relevant and necessary for the case ["Sidhkaran VS Manjulata - Rajasthan"], ["Kattekola Dhana Laxmi vs Surakanti Narsi Redy - Telangana"].
The Court’s authority to summon a party or third-party documents is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, considering whether such summons serve the interests of justice or amount to an abuse ["M/s Name Estates Pvt Ltd vs N Copal Naidu And4 Others - Telangana"], ["Kummari Chennaiah vs Sri K Raja Shekar - Telangana"].
Importantly, the law does not prohibit a party from calling the other party as a witness or from seeking to produce documents from third parties during trial, even in the midst of cross-examination, as long as the application is made properly and the relevance is established ["Narne Estates Pvt Ltd vs N.Gopal Naidu and 4 Others - Telangana"], ["Ramaniyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd. vs Gunda Ramani - Madras"].
Therefore, during the course of his examination-in-chief or cross-examination, the plaintiff can summon documents in possession of third parties by filing appropriate applications, and the Court can permit such summons if justified by the circumstances of the case ["M/s Name Estates Pvt Ltd vs N Copal Naidu And4 Others - Telangana"], ["Sidhkaran VS Manjulata - Rajasthan"].
References:- ["Narne Estates Pvt Ltd vs N.Gopal Naidu and 4 Others - Telangana"]- ["M/s Name Estates Pvt Ltd vs N Copal Naidu And4 Others - Telangana"]- ["Kattekola Dhana Laxmi vs Surakanti Narsi Redy - Telangana"]- ["Sidhkaran VS Manjulata - Rajasthan"]- ["Sampurna Builders vs A.Kiran Kumar, S/O A.Phaniraj - Karnataka"]- ["Ramaniyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd. vs Gunda Ramani - Madras"]- ["Ramaniyam Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs Gunda Ramani - Madras"]- ["Kummari Chennaiah vs Sri K Raja Shekar - Telangana"]
In the high-stakes environment of a civil trial, timing and procedure can make or break a case. Imagine this: you're the plaintiff, midway through your examination-in-chief, and you suddenly need a crucial document held by a third party. Can you summon it right then? This is a common dilemma for litigants navigating India's Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Generally, the answer is no—unless strict procedural rules and court approval are followed.
This blog post breaks down the legal framework, key court rulings, exceptions, and practical advice to help you understand whether a plaintiff can summon documents in possession of a third party during examination-in-chief. Note: This is general information based on precedents and statutes; consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your case.
The issue at hand is straightforward: whether during the midst of his examination-in-chief, the plaintiff can summon documents which are in possession of a third party?
Courts have consistently ruled that such spontaneous summoning is typically impermissible. Production of documents must adhere to statutory timelines and safeguards to ensure fairness, prevent surprise, and uphold evidence admissibility. Let's dive into the rules.
The CPC provides clear guidelines on when and how documents can be introduced. Key provisions include:
Order 7 Rule 14 CPC: When filing the plaint, plaintiffs must list and produce relied-upon documents, providing copies to the defendant. Sub-rule (3) states that documents not produced or entered without leave of the court shall not be received in evidence at the hearing Satish Churn Law VS H. K. Ganguly - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 387. Late production without court leave risks exclusion.
Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC: Defendants must similarly file documents with their written statement. Exceptions exist for cross-examination documents, which can be introduced during cross-examination without prior formal production or exhibit marking Pravin VS Pooja - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1091.
Order 13 Rule 1 CPC: Documents should be produced at or before issue settlement, barring cross-examination exceptions.
These rules prevent 'trial by ambush,' ensuring both parties are prepared. Summoning third-party documents mid-examination-in-chief bypasses these, often leading to objections on relevance and admissibility.
Third-party documents aren't automatically accessible. Courts exercise discretion under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC, which allows summoning persons (including for documents) but limits parties' rights. As noted in one ruling, The discretionary power of the court to summon witnesses under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC and the limitations on the parties' right to invoke the power of the court under this rule Kotti Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao VS Kotti Venkata Rama Krishna S/o Late Jagannadha Rao - 2023 Supreme(AP) 862.
In a partition suit, a defendant sought to summon a bank's original Will: The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that there were no bona-fides... to issue summons to produce the document Kotti Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao VS Kotti Venkata Rama Krishna S/o Late Jagannadha Rao - 2023 Supreme(AP) 862. The court stressed parties must prove relevance and specificity; vague requests fail.
Another case reinforces: Two conditions are required... The first is that the documents, which are proposed to be summoned, must be shown to be relevant to the dispute in the suit Shaik Hussain Peera VS J. Suseelamma W/o. Late Subramanyam, Housewife - 2011 Supreme(AP) 63. Litigants can't casually summon; courts guard against fishing expeditions.
During examination-in-chief, plaintiffs lack the 'surprise element' privilege of cross-examination. The production of documents in a trial is governed by statutory provisions... Documents in possession of third parties are not automatically admissible or summonable during the course of examination-in-chief unless the court permits Renuka Bhati VS Brijraj Singh - 2011 0 Supreme(Raj) 1434.
Judicial decisions underscore these limits:
In Renuka Bhati VS Brijraj Singh - 2011 0 Supreme(Raj) 1434, the court held that third-party document production mid-examination-in-chief requires approval: The power to summon third-party documents is exercised in exceptional cases and generally requires the court’s approval or specific procedural steps... to prevent surprise and maintain procedural fairness.
Similarly, Mohammed Abdul Wahid VS Nilofer - 2023 8 Supreme 487 clarified: Evidence, including documents, must be produced and admitted in accordance with procedural rules. Confronting a witness with third-party documents during examination-in-chief without prior production or court permission undermines procedural fairness and admissibility standards.
Other sources align. In a specific performance suit, summoning bank records from a party (not third-party) was scrutinized under Order 16, but courts remanded for fresh consideration of relevance Lokesh Foundaries Pvt Ltd. , rep. by its Managing Director Bayana Venkata Rao VS Varun Motors, rep. by its Proprietor Vallurupalli Prabhu Kishore - 2016 Supreme(AP) 455. For true third parties, notice under Order 12 Rule 8 or certified copies under Bankers Books Evidence Act may apply, but not impromptu summons.
Even affidavits in examination-in-chief can't bypass this: The respondent/plaintiff filed his affidavit... Even if a party voluntarily appears... after examination-in-chief and before cross examination—evidence remains challengeable if not properly produced Kotti Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao VS Kotti Venkata Rama Krishna S/o Late Jagannadha Rao - 2023 Supreme(AP) 862.
Courts aren't rigid; narrow exceptions exist:
Court's Suo Motu Power: Under Order 16 Rule 14 or Section 165 Evidence Act, judges can summon if essential for justice M. Sharadamma, W/o Late Sri. Nagaraj M.K. vs Kiran Kumar, S/o Late Sri. Premchand - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 72. A party to a suit cannot compel the opponent to testify... the trial court has discretion.
Cross-Examination Surprise: Allowed more freely, but not for plaintiffs' chief exam Pravin VS Pooja - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1091.
Already on Record or Formal Admission: If listed earlier or court-permitted.
Specific Descriptions: Applications must detail documents precisely Shaik Hussain Peera VS J. Suseelamma W/o. Late Subramanyam, Housewife - 2011 Supreme(AP) 63. Vague pleas, like summoning a bank's records without exact IDs, get dismissed.
In partition cases, unregistered documents couldn't be marked through plaintiff without attestors AVANI VS SOMASUNDARAM - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 3794. Xerox copies? Rarely admissible without originals, even sans objection.
To avoid pitfalls:
Pre-Trial Prep: List all third-party documents in plaint; apply early under Order 16 for summons.
Seek Leave: During trial, file formal applications showing relevance—don't spring surprises in chief exam.
Alternatives: Use notices to produce (Order 12 Rule 8), interrogatories (Order 11), or adverse inferences for non-production.
Cross-Examination Focus: Reserve surprises for defendant's turn.
As one court advised, parties must exercise due care and caution; belated applications for additional evidence fail under Order 18 Rule 17-A Ajay Trading Company VS Karan Beej Bhandar - 2010 Supreme(P&H) 1439.
In summary, during examination-in-chief, a plaintiff typically cannot summon or produce third-party documents without court permission, prior listing, or procedural compliance under CPC Orders 7, 8, 13, and 16. This upholds trial integrity.
Key Takeaways:- Follow timelines to avoid inadmissibility.- Prove relevance and specificity for summons.- Rely on court discretion, not party rights.- Exceptions are rare; prepare meticulously.
Stay procedural to strengthen your case. For tailored guidance, engage a civil litigation expert.
References: Satish Churn Law VS H. K. Ganguly - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 387Pravin VS Pooja - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1091Renuka Bhati VS Brijraj Singh - 2011 0 Supreme(Raj) 1434Mohammed Abdul Wahid VS Nilofer - 2023 8 Supreme 487Kotti Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao VS Kotti Venkata Rama Krishna S/o Late Jagannadha Rao - 2023 Supreme(AP) 862Shaik Hussain Peera VS J. Suseelamma W/o. Late Subramanyam, Housewife - 2011 Supreme(AP) 63Lokesh Foundaries Pvt Ltd. , rep. by its Managing Director Bayana Venkata Rao VS Varun Motors, rep. by its Proprietor Vallurupalli Prabhu Kishore - 2016 Supreme(AP) 455M. Sharadamma, W/o Late Sri. Nagaraj M.K. vs Kiran Kumar, S/o Late Sri. Premchand - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 72AVANI VS SOMASUNDARAM - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 3794Ajay Trading Company VS Karan Beej Bhandar - 2010 Supreme(P&H) 1439
#CivilProcedure #ExaminationInChief #LegalEvidence
At that stage, the petitioner - plaintiff filed both these applications to re-open their evidence and to summon the defendant No.1 to subject himself for cross-examination. ... aspects, which were required to be proved by the petitioner - plaintiff to prove his case and as the CPC also enables a party, to summon the opponent as a witness including for cross-examination, the trial court ought to have allowed the applications. ... Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC provides that a....
aspects, which were required to be proved by the petitioner - plaintiff to prove his case and as the CPC also enables a party, to summon the opponent as a witness including for cross-examination, the trial court ought to have allowed the applications. ... Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC provides that a party can summon any person including the opposite party as a witness. ... I.A.No.105 of 2022 is filed under Section 151 of CPC to re-open the case of the petitioner - #HL_STAR....
respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 for the purpose of cross-examination, has been dismissed. ... The revision petitioners herein intend to pose certain crucial questions in respect of documents marked on behalf of respondents. Therefore, the I.A. under revision is filed to summon respondent No.1 for the purpose of cross- examination. ... During arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioners urged that suit for specific performance is filed jointly by both the respondents and it is therefore, necess....
The respondent/plaintiff filed his affidavit in the form of examination in chief on 9.3.2018 and the respondent took several adjournments for his cross examination. The said I.A. has been filed on 8.6.2018 to drag on the disposal of the suit at belated stage. ... 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 and before cross examination, the Cou....
Examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination are all facets of a trial which can be availed by a party or the adversary, for both the party to a suit as a witness and also for other witnesses called by the party. ... Hence, the additional documents and the list of witnesses were filed by the plaintiff and in that list, the first and third defendants were shown as witnesses to be examined on the side o....
Examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination are all facets of a trial which can be availed by a party or the adversary, for both the party to a suit as a witness and also for other witnesses called by the party. ... Hence, the additional documents and the list of witnesses were filed by the plaintiff and in that list, the first and third defendants were shown as witnesses to be examined on the side o....
So, in order to determine whether this income tax return are original documents or fake documents, summoning the documents from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is necessary. However, the evidence of above said witness is not necessary. ... Before the concerned court, the 9th defendant files two applications as observed hereinabove for summoning of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for the purpose of deposing qua the documents that are produced by the #HL_START....
Order 16 Rule 6 on the other hand provides for summoning of a witness for producing a document in his possession. Thus, Order 13 deals with documents in possession or power of a party whereas Order 16 Rule 6 deals with documents which are in possession of third party who may be called as witnesses. ... The trial Court allowed this prayer and by the impugned order directed that the documents (Ex.4) and (Ex.5) exhibited during the #HL....
b) Whether, under law, and more specifically, Order VII Rule 14; Order VIII Rule 1-A; Order XIII Rule 1 etc, enjoin the party under-taking cross examination of a party to a suit from producing documents, for the purposes thereof, by virtue of the use of the phrase(s) plaintiff/ ... For ready reference, the provisions are extracted as under: Section 137 Examination-in-chief. –– The examination of witness by the party#HL_EN....
All these decisions in our view only indicate that it is not as if the Court has no power to direct the examination of a party to the suit if it considers it necessary to order his examination. ... It is really left to the Court, possibly after the evidence of all the witnesses made available is completed, to consider whether the examination of one of the parties who has not come before Court, is necessary and in that context if found necessary, to compel that party to give evidence in....
The other party may have some material to dislodge that evidence or create doubt about the existence of that evidence, hence opportunity cannot be denied by shutting down the door of the cross-examination. Any evidence which is tendered by one party should be open and available for the challenge by the other party. Once the plaintiff is not available for cross-examination, then whatever in-chief on record which includes also the exhibition of the documents cannot be relied by the plaintiff. Moreover, the admission of the contents of the documents were specifically denied an....
The remaining two documents are sale agreement dated 15.05.1996 and 02.03.1998, since the counsel for the petitioners/3rd defendant and 4th defendant objected to mark the above two documents that they were not registered and they are not the title deed, and they are not the document of title and no title right effected with regard to the properties mentioned in those documents. The respondent/plaintiff filed nine documents with the plaint. Without examining the parties of the documents namely Shanmugam and Pachamuthu, the above documents could not be marked through the plaintiff, who is the ....
Same principle is reiterated in another expression of this Court in Shaik Hussain Peera (died) LRs vs J.Suseelamma (2011 (5) ALD 39)particularly at para Nos.4 & 5 as under: “4. A party to a suit is conferred with a right to summon the documents, which are not in his possession, by filing an application under the relevant Rule of Order 16 CPC. Two conditions are required to be satisfied for this purpose: The first is that the documents, which are proposed to be summoned, must be shown to be relevant to the dispute in the suit.
Two conditions are required to be satisfied for this purpose: The first is that the documents, which are proposed to be summoned, must be shown to be relevant, to the dispute in the suit. 4. A party to a suit is conferred with a right to summon the documents, which are not in his possession, by filing an application under the relevant Rule of Order 16 Code of Civil Procedure.
2. That plaintiff wants to produce and wants to exhibit the documents which are on the judicial file but at the time of plaintiff’s evidence the plaintiff could not exhibit these documents. 9.9.2006 and postal receipt of the legal notice bearing No.1179 and the registered letter are necessary to be exhibited. Although the plaintiff has mentioned above documents in his affidavit in examination-in-chief.
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
