Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for V. K. MISHRA VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND...

V. K. MISHRA VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - 2015 5 Supreme 614 : To contradict a witness using an earlier deposition from the same court in a rent control petition, the party seeking to contradict must follow the procedure under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Specifically, the witness must be confronted with the specific parts of their prior written statement intended for contradiction during cross-examination. The court must ensure that the witness''''s attention is drawn to those parts before the statement can be used to contradict them. If the witness admits the statement, it stands proved and no further proof is needed. If the witness denies making the statement, the court must record that denial, and the statement must then be proved by calling the investigating officer (or relevant official) who recorded it, and drawing their attention to the contested portion. Crucially, the statement cannot be used to contradict the witness unless the witness was first confronted with the relevant part of their prior statement during cross-examination. In the absence of such confrontation, the court cannot use the prior statement to contradict the witness, even if it is from the same court proceeding.Checking relevance for Munna Pandey VS State Of Bihar...

Munna Pandey VS State Of Bihar - 2023 6 Supreme 360 : To contradict a witness using an earlier deposition from the same court in a rent control petition, the party must follow the procedure established under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Specifically, when intending to contradict a witness with a previous written statement (such as a deposition), the party must first draw the witness''''s attention to the specific parts of the statement that are intended for contradiction. This must be done during cross-examination, and the witness’s acknowledgment or denial of those parts must be recorded in the deposition. Only after this process can the statement be formally proved. If the witness was not confronted with the relevant portion of the statement during cross-examination, the court cannot suo motu use that statement to contradict the witness, even if it is part of the record. Therefore, the defense counsel has the duty to confront the witness with the prior statement in compliance with Section 145, ensuring that the contradiction is properly brought on record before it can be used in evidence.Checking relevance for B. Shashikala VS State Of A. P. ...

Checking relevance for Sita Ram Bhau Patil VS Ramchandra Nago Patil...

Sita Ram Bhau Patil VS Ramchandra Nago Patil - 1977 0 Supreme(SC) 44 : To contradict a witness using an earlier deposition from the same court in a rent control petition, the following legal principles apply: (1) The deposition must be relevant to the matter in question and must constitute a clear, unambiguous admission; (2) The witness must be confronted with the prior statement during cross-examination; (3) Under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, if a witness is to be contradicted by a previous written statement, their attention must be called to the specific parts of the statement intended to be used for contradiction before the statement can be proved; (4) A mere proof of an admission after the witness has concluded their evidence is insufficient and cannot be used against them unless they were given an opportunity to explain or clarify the statement; (5) The admission must be proved as evidence, and its admissibility depends on whether it is relevant, clear, and made under circumstances that make it binding. In this case, the court held that the respondent’s statement in the earlier deposition was not a clear admission, was not brought to his attention during cross-examination, and thus could not be used to contradict him, even though it was later placed on record.Checking relevance for Owners And Parties. Interested In M. V. vali Pero: Owners And Parties Interested In M. V. vali Pero VS Fernandeo Lopez...

Checking relevance for Wariyamsingh VS State Of U. P. ...

Checking relevance for Kinarullaparambath Abdul Azeez, S/o. Kunjabdulla VS Valiyaparambath Vasu, S/o. Narayanan...

Kinarullaparambath Abdul Azeez, S/o. Kunjabdulla VS Valiyaparambath Vasu, S/o. Narayanan - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 484 : Under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, a witness can be contradicted by reference to previous statements made by them in writing or reduced into writing. This includes prior depositions, even if recorded in a proceeding that lacked jurisdiction, as long as the witness is available for cross-examination. However, such prior depositions cannot be used as substantive evidence in a subsequent proceeding if the original proceeding was invalid due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the context of a rent control petition, if a witness''''s earlier deposition was recorded in a judicial proceeding (even if later found to be invalid due to jurisdictional defects), it may still be used to contradict the witness during cross-examination in a new trial before a proper Rent Control Court, provided the witness is available and the prior statement is in writing. The key distinction is that while such prior depositions cannot serve as substantive evidence (as per Section 33 of the Evidence Act), they can be used under Section 145 to impeach the witness’s credibility.Checking relevance for Telanakula Kasi Viswanadham VS Pokuri Maruthi Prasad...

Telanakula Kasi Viswanadham VS Pokuri Maruthi Prasad - 2019 0 Supreme(AP) 54 : To contradict a witness using an earlier deposition from the same court in a rent control petition, the proper procedure is to cross-examine the witness based on their previous statement made in a judicial proceeding. The witness should be cited to the relevant portion of their earlier deposition. If the witness admits the earlier statement during cross-examination, that admission can be recorded in the current deposition. However, if the witness denies the earlier statement, only the specific portions of the previous deposition that are contradictory and directly challenged can be marked as an exhibit. The entire earlier deposition cannot be marked unless the witness admits all relevant parts. This approach ensures that only the contested and contradictory portions are admitted, and the court must carefully assess whether the witness provides a satisfactory explanation for the inconsistency.

• Filling Lacuna in Evidence - Courts sometimes permit additional evidence (e.g., receipts, documents) to fill gaps or lacunae in a party’s case, especially when such evidence was available during trial but not produced earlier. However, this practice is controversial because it can prejudice the opposing party and may undermine the fairness of the proceedings. Courts have emphasized that additional evidence should not be admitted merely to patch up weaknesses or gaps in the original case, particularly at appellate or revision stages, as this contravenes procedural principles. DOSTH MOTORS VS SEBIN K. XAVIER S/O K. A. XAVIER - Kerala, DOSTH MOTORS vs SEBIN K XAVIER - Kerala, The Balwant Education Society Agra And Another Vs. M/S Agra Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. And Another - Allahabad, Balwant Education Society, Agra VS Agra Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. - Allahabad, Balwant Education Society, Agra vs Agra Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. - Allahabad, Harishankar Vaishya vs Mandir Shri Janki Mandir Trust Bairad Teh Pohari Through President Mevalal Gupta - Madhya Pradesh, JOHN vs LOURTHUBAI - Madras

• Limitations on Additional Evidence - Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, additional evidence cannot be introduced at the appellate stage to fill lacunae that could have been addressed during the trial. The courts have consistently held that such evidence is inadmissible if it is merely meant to patch gaps or weaknesses in the case, as doing so would violate procedural fairness and the principle of finality in evidence presentation. Reappreciation of evidence or filling lacunae at the appellate level is generally not permitted unless exceptional circumstances justify it. The Balwant Education Society Agra And Another Vs. M/S Agra Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. And Another - Allahabad, Harishankar Vaishya vs Mandir Shri Janki Mandir Trust Bairad Teh Pohari Through President Mevalal Gupta - Madhya Pradesh, MD. IDRISH ALI S/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR VS GANESH DAS S/O LATE SARAT DAS - Gauhati, MILAN THAPA@MAJHI@HARI MAJHI vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR - Calcutta

• Impact on Substantial Rights of Tenant - Allowing the landlord to introduce evidence solely to fill lacunae, especially at the appellate or revision stage, can be considered a denial of the tenant’s substantial right to a fair trial. Such practices may lead to prejudice against the tenant, as the landlord gains an unfair advantage by supplementing evidence after the trial, potentially affecting the outcome of eviction proceedings. Courts recognize that procedural fairness and the rights of tenants must be safeguarded, and admissibility of evidence should not be manipulated to fill procedural gaps post-trial. DOSTH MOTORS VS SEBIN K. XAVIER S/O K. A. XAVIER - Kerala, DOSTH MOTORS vs SEBIN K XAVIER - Kerala, The Balwant Education Society Agra And Another Vs. M/S Agra Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. And Another - Allahabad

Analysis and Conclusion:Permitting a landlord to give evidence to fill lacunae at advanced stages of litigation, such as during appeal or revision, is generally viewed as a violation of the tenant’s substantial rights and the principles of fair trial. Courts have consistently held that additional evidence should not be admitted solely to patch procedural gaps unless justified by exceptional circumstances, and such practice risks prejudicing tenants by allowing landlords to supplement evidence after the original trial. This approach ensures the integrity of the judicial process and protects tenants from procedural unfairness.