Bombay High Court
JIJABHAU DYANESHWAR TEMGIREversusGANGARAM KHANDU TEMGIRE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
A party may produce documents for cross‑examination without prior disclosure provided the documents are not foreign to the pleadings, as clarified in Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer.
Summary
The petition filed by defendant‑1 challenged the trial court’s refusal to allow him to produce payment receipts during the cross‑examination of plaintiff‑1. The suit concerned the cancellation of three sale deeds and a rectification deed allegedly obtained by misuse of a cancelled power of attorney. Defendant‑1 argued that the receipts, though not disclosed earlier, were pleaded in his written statement and were necessary to confront the plaintiff on the consideration paid. The plaintiffs contended that the CPC’s Order VIII Rule 1A required prior production of such documents and that only documents outside the parties’ case could be used in cross‑examination. The Court examined the amended provisions of the CPC, the Evidence Act 1872 (s. 145) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (s. 148), and relied on the Apex Court’s decision in Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer. It held that documents not foreign to the pleadings may be produced for effective cross‑examination without prior disclosure, overruling the trial court’s order. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the trial court’s order was set aside, permitting the defendant to produce the receipts.
Issues considered
- Whether a party may produce documents during cross‑examination that were not disclosed earlier under the amended provisions of the CPC.
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendant’s application to produce payment receipts.
- Interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1A and related CPC provisions in view of the Apex Court’s decision in Mohammed Abdul Wahid.
- Whether the receipts are ‘foreign to the pleadings’ and thus inadmissible in cross‑examination.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — s. Section 148
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VIII Rule 1A (sub‑rules 1, 3, 4), Order VII Rule 14, Order XIII Rule 1 (sub‑rules 1, 2, 3)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. Section 145
Subjects
- document production
- cross‑examination
- Civil Procedure Code
- Evidence Act
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
- amended CPC provisions
- receipt evidence
- sale deed dispute
- injunction
- power of attorney
Judgment
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
rrpillai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8080 OF 2022
Mr. Jijabhau Dyaneshwar Temgire … Petitioner
Age : 50 Years, Occupation : Business
R/a-Thorandale, Taluka – Ambegaon
Dist - Pune
Vs.
1. Mr. Gangaram Khandu Temgire
Age : 33 years, Occupation : Business
R/a-Thorandale, Taluka – Ambegaon
Dist – Pune
2. Mr. Malini Shantaram Neharkar
Age : 45 years, Occupation : Housewife
R/a-Thorandale, Taluka – Ambegaon
Dist – Pune
3. Mr. Vivek Arun Sathe
Age : 31 years, Occupation : Service
R/a – Sathe Chawl, Station Road
Pimpri, Pune-18
4. Mr. Jeevan Jijabhau Temgire
Age : Adult, Occupation : Business
R/a-Thorandale, Taluka – Ambegaon
Dist – Pune … Respondents
Mr. Mateen Shaikh a/w. Mr. Shrinivas Kshirsagar, Mr. Parvez
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHWARI
Inamdar and Ms. Muskan Shaikh for the Petitioner.
RAJESHWARI RAMESH
RAMESH PILLAI
PILLAI Date:
2026.03.04
14:39:04
+0530 Page no. 1 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
Mr. P. J. Thorat i/b. Mr. Prabhanjan Gujar for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
RESERVED ON : 13th NOVEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 4th MARCH 2026
JUDGMENT:
Basic Facts:
1. This petition is filed by defendant no. 1 to challenge the
order passed by the trial court rejecting his application to
produce documents to confront plaintiff no. 1 during his
cross-examination. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are the original
plaintiffs who filed the suit for the cancellation of three sale
deeds dated 3rd April 2012 and the deed of rectification dated
10th April 2012 executed by defendant no. 1 as a constituted
attorney of the plaintiffs, in favour of defendant no. 2. The
plaintiffs also prayed for a decree of injunction restraining the
defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs’ possession of the
suit property and creating any third-party interest in the suit
property. Respondent no. 2 is the original defendant no 2.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner (‘defendant no.1’):
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner (‘defendant no.1’)
submitted that the plaintiffs have alleged that, based on a
Page no. 2 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
cancelled power of attorney, defendant no. 1 got three sale
deeds and one correction deed executed in favour of
defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 1 filed the written statement
and contended that the registered power of attorney was for
consideration and an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs was paid to
plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, and receipts were issued in the name
of plaintiff no. 1. Defendant no. 1 had filed an application
below Exhibit 113 for amendment of the written statement to
add pleadings regarding the particulars of cash vouchers and
the amount of consideration. The application was rejected as
the trial had commenced, and the suit was posted for the
cross-examination of plaintiff no. 1. Thereafter, defendant no.
1 filed an application to produce the receipts as per the list in
evidence to confront plaintiff no. 1 during his cross-
examination.
3. Learned counsel for defendant no.1 submitted that
defendant no. 1 has pleaded in paragraphs 22 and 24 of the
written statement regarding payment made towards the
consideration amount. Since the receipts were not available
with defendant no. 1 at the time of filing the written
statement, the particulars of the receipts were not pleaded,
Page no. 3 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
and the receipts were not produced. However, in view of the
pleadings regarding the payment of the consideration
amount to the plaintiffs, defendant no. 1 was entitled to
confront plaintiff no. 1 with the receipts during his cross-
examination. Hence, defendant no. 1 is entitled to produce
the receipts in evidence to confront plaintiff no. 1 during his
cross-examination.
4. To support his submissions, learned counsel for
defendant no. 1 relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs Nilofer and another 1 .
He submits that so long as the document is produced for the
limited purpose of the effective cross-examination or to
refresh the memory of the witness, and the document is not
foreign to the pleadings made, such production of the
document during the cross-examination can be permitted. He
submits that it is a well-established legal principle that
procedural rules are handmaid of justice and cannot be
applied with a hyper technical approach, and thus the trial
court should have permitted defendant no. 1 to produce the
documents in evidence for confronting plaintiff no. 1 in the
cross-examination.
1 (2024) 2 SCC 144
Page no. 4 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
Submissions on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 (‘plaintiffs’):
5. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 (‘plaintiffs’)
submitted that since defendant no. 1 has not produced the
documents as per Order VIII Rule 1A(1) of the CPC, he
cannot confront plaintiff no. 1 with the documents during the
cross-examination. He can confront the witness only if Order
VIII Rule 1A(3) is complied with. He relied upon the decision
of this Court in Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar Vs Raghuvir Sinal
Lotlekar2. In the said decision, while dealing with the
unamended provisions of the CPC, this court held that the
true and correct interpretation of Order XIII, Rule 2(2) of the
CPC is that the only documents which can be produced in
cross-examination are those which are outside the case of
each of the parties and those meant to refresh the witness's
memory. It is held that reading together Rule 18 (2) and Rule
1(6) of Orders VII and VIII, respectively, it would appear that
the expression ‘subsequent to the filing of the plaint’,
occurring in sub-rule (6) of Rule 1 of Order VIII, gives the key
to the problem and indicates that what the legislature meant
is that, if a plaintiff advances something new after the filing of
the plaint, or if a defendant does so after the filing of the
2 1984 SCC Online Bom 228
Page no. 5 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
written statement, his adversary in the suit will be entitled to
confront him with a document concerning the new case
advanced by him. According to the learned counsel for the
plaintiffs, it is further held that the documents which can be
introduced in evidence by way of cross-examination are
those not intended to prove the original case of a plaintiff or a
defendant as set out in the plaint or written statement.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also relied upon the
decision of this Court in Rekha Nalavade Vs The Municipal
Commissioner of Greater Mumbai and others3. He submits
that this Court relied upon the legal principles settled in
Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar and, with reference to the amended
Order XIII Rule 1(1) of CPC and Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC,
disapproved the trial court’s findings based on the
photographs produced on record by confronting the co-
defendant’s witness in the cross-examination.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs referred to the 2002
amendments to the CPC and the provisions prior to the
amendments. He submitted that leave as per the amended
Rule 14 (3) of Order VII is necessary to produce a document
at the time of hearing of the suit. The amended Rule (1A) of
3 2025 SCC Online Bom 860
Page no. 6 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
Order VIII requires the defendant to produce documents
upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him, along with
a list, and shall produce them in the court when the written
statement is presented. Any such document, if not so
produced, can be received in evidence at the time of hearing
of the suit only with the leave of the court. In the present
case, since the defendant has not produced the documents
he could have produced under Order VIII Rule (1A)(1), he is
not entitled to confront the plaintiff with them in the cross-
examination. In view of the amended provisions of the CPC,
the defendant can confront the witness in the cross-
examination only if Order VIII Rule (1A)(3) is complied with.
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that Rule 2 (2)
of Order XIII of the unamended CPC, permitting production
of documents at a subsequent stage by showing good cause
for non-production under Rule 1 of Order XIII, is now deleted
by the 2002 amendments. Under the amended Order XIII,
the parties must produce all documents in original before the
settlement of issues, where the copies are filed along with
the plaint or written statement. The court can receive such
documents, provided they are produced along with an
Page no. 7 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
accurate list. He therefore submits that the proposition laid
down in Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar with reference to the
unamended Orders VIII and XIII would also apply to the
amended provisions, that only documents outside the case of
the parties can be confronted in the cross-examination. If any
document within the scope of the case of the parties that is to
be produced in their respective evidence is permitted to be
confronted during the cross-examination, all other provisions
would be rendered nugatory. According to the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs, the question for consideration in the
Apex Court's decision in Mohammed Wahid was different
and would not apply to the facts of the present case. He
submits that the Apex Court was deciding the reference on
the point whether a party to a suit is also a witness with
reference to the interpretation of the provisions of Order VII
Rule 14 and Order VIII Rule 1-A(4)(a) and Order XIII Rule
1(3)(a) of the CPC.
Consideration and Analysis:
9. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the suit property was
originally owned by Dhondabai Janku Timgere, who gifted it
to the plaintiffs by a gift deed dated 5 th July 2004. The
Page no. 8 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
plaintiffs have pleaded that, by misusing a cancelled power
of attorney, defendant no. 1 fraudulently obtained three sale
deeds and one deed of rectification executed in favour of
defendant no. 2, without any consideration or possession.
10. Defendant no. 1 filed his written statement and denied
the suit claim. He pleaded that the consideration amount of
Rs. 5 Lakhs was paid to plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, and receipts
were issued in the name of plaintiff no. 1. Defendant no. 1
had filed an application below Exhibit 113 for amendment of
the written statement to add pleadings regarding the
particulars of the receipts. The application was rejected as
the trial had commenced, and the suit was for the cross-
examination of plaintiff no. 1. Thereafter, defendant no. 1
filed an application to produce the receipts in evidence during
the cross-examination of plaintiff no. 1. This application was
rejected by the impugned order.
11. In Mohammed Wahid, the Hon’ble Apex Court decided
the controversy whether the phrase plaintiff's/defendant's
witness exclude the plaintiff or defendant themselves, when
they appear as witnesses in their own cause and whether
Order VII Rule 14, Order VIII Rule 1-A and Order XIII Rule 1
Page no. 9 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
prohibits the party undertaking 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/defendant's
witness or witnesses of the other party, when cross-
examining the opposite party. The appeal before the Apex
Court was filed to challenge the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court while answering the reference on the
conflict of decisions on the issue of the difference, if any,
between the party to a suit and a witness in a suit on the one
hand and, also with respect to when it may be permissible to
produce documents directly at the stage of the cross-
examination.
12. The view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in
answering the reference holding that a party cannot be
equated to a witness is overruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
by holding that witnesses and parties to a suit, for the
purposes of adducing evidence, either documentary or oral,
are on the same footing.
13. On the second question, as to whether Order VII Rule
14, Order VIII Rule 1-A and Order XIII Rule 1 prohibit the
party undertaking cross-examination of a party to a suit from
Page no. 10 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
producing documents, the Apex Court observed in paragraph
37 that “it is a settled law that what is not pleaded cannot be
argued, as for the purposes of adjudication, it is necessary
for the other party to know the contours of the case it is
required to meet. It is equally well settled that the
requirement of having to plead a particular argument does
not include exhaustively doing so.”
14. The Apex Court discussed the provisions of Orders VII,
VIII and XIII of the CPC, requiring the plaintiff and the
defendant to produce before the court the documents upon
which they seek to place reliance, and the exemption from
this obligation provided for the limited purpose of cross-
examination or to jog the memory of a witness. It is held that
there is no difference between a party to a suit as a witness
and a witness simpliciter, and that the production of
documents for both a party to the suit and a witness, as the
case may be, at the stage of cross-examination is
permissible under law.
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court thus held that the Court has to
look into the substance and therefore, in reference to the
production of documents, so long as the document produced
Page no. 11 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
for the limited purpose of effective cross-examination or to
jog the memory of the witness is not completely divorced
from or foreign to the pleadings made, the same cannot be
disallowed.
16. Thus, the argument raised by the learned counsel for
the plaintiffs that defendant no. 1 in the present case cannot
be permitted to confront plaintiff no. 1 with the document
during cross-examination, as it is not outside the case of the
parties, has no substance. In view of the legal principles
settled by the Apex Court in the decision of Mohammed
Wahid, as discussed above, it is clear that, so far as the
document produced for confronting a witness in the cross-
examination is not foreign to the pleadings, production of
such a document for confrontation is permissible.
17. The observations in paragraph 6 of the judgment of this
Court in Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar that “…. In my opinion, the
true and correct interpretation of Order XIII, Rule 2(2) Civil
Procedure Code is that the only documents which can be
produced in cross-examination are those which are outside
the case of each of the parties and those meant to refresh
the witness’s memory…..”, cannot be read out of context.
Page no. 12 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
The said decision dealt with the unamended provisions of the
CPC. The propositions laid down in Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar
are based on the discussions in said decision on Rule 18 of
Order VII, which is deleted, Rule 1 of Order VIII, which is
substituted, and Rule 1A is inserted and Rule 2 of Order XIII,
which is also deleted by the 2002 amendments. In the
decision of this Court in Rekha Nalavade, relied upon by the
learned counsel for the plaintiffs, this Court reversed the trial
court’s findings based on photographs produced during the
cross-examination of a witness examined by a co-defendant
who had no adverse interest. Hence, the said decision is not
relevant to deciding the controversy in the present case.
Although this Court referred to the decision in Laxmikant
Sinal Lotlekar, it held that the provisions of Order XIII and VIII
would indicate that the parties are required to produce on or
before the settlement of issues all documentary evidence
except the documents which are produced for the cross-
examination of a witness of the other party.
18. The CPC is a procedural law that governs the
production of documents, while the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (“Evidence Act”) contains the substantive provisions
Page no. 13 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
governing the recording of evidence. The relevant provisions
governing the production of documents are found in Orders
VII, VIII, and XIII of the CPC. In view of sub-rule (1) of Rule
14 of Order VII, the documents on which the plaintiff relies
and which are in his possession and power must be entered
by him in a list and produced at the time of filing the plaint.
Any document which is not produced as provided under sub-
rule (1) of Rule 14 of Order VII can be received in evidence
on behalf of the plaintiff with leave of the court, by taking
recourse to sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII. The sub-rule
(4) of Rule 14 of Order VII provides for an exception and
permits the production of a document that was not produced
as provided under sub-rules (1) and (3) of Rule 14 of Order
VII, if such a document is produced for the cross-examination
of the plaintiff’s witnesses or handed over to a witness
merely to refresh his memory.
19. In view of sub-rule (1) of Rule 1A of Order VIII, the
documents on which the defendant relies in support of his
defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim and which are in
his possession and power must be entered by him in a list
and produced at the time of filing the written statement. Any
Page no. 14 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
document which is not produced as provided under sub-rule
(1) of Rule 1A of Order VIII can be received in evidence on
behalf of the defendant with leave of the court, by taking
recourse to sub-rule (3) of Rule 1A of Order VIII. The sub-
rule (4) of Rule 1A of Order VIII provides for an exception
and permits the production of a document that was not
produced as provided under sub-rules (1) and (3) of Rule 1A
of Order VIII, if such a document is produced for the cross-
examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses or handed over to a
witness merely to refresh his memory.
20. In view of the sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XIII, the
parties shall produce on or before the settlement of issues all
the documentary evidence in original where the copies
thereof have been filed along with the plaint or written
statement. In view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order XIII, the
court is empowered to receive such documents provided
they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in
the prescribed form. The sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XIII
again provides for an exception and permits the production of
a document that was not produced as provided under Rules
1 and 2 of Order XIII, if such a document is produced for the
Page no. 15 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party or
handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.
21. Therefore, the law to produce documentary evidence
by a party at the relevant stage as provided under the Orders
VII, VIII and XIII provides for an exception permitting
production of a document for cross-examination of the
witness of the other party or to refresh the memory of a
witness, even if that document was not produced at the time
of filing the plaint or written statement or at the time of
settlement of issues, provided such a document is relevant
for the cross-examination of the witness as set out in Section
145 of the Evidence Act.
22. The rules governing the examination of witnesses are
set out in Chapter X of the Evidence Act. For the purpose of
deciding the controversy in the present case, it would be
necessary to understand Section 145 of the Evidence Act,
which reads as under:
“145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in
writing. - A witness may be cross-examined as to
previous statements made by him in writing or reduced
into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without
Page no. 16 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
such writing, being shown to him, or being proved; but, if
it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention
must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those
parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of
contradicting him. ”
23. The corresponding Section 148 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (“BSA”) also reads the same, and
there is no change. The object of the procedural rules
provided under the CPC that govern the production of
documents and the relevant law for cross-examination of a
witness, as provided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act
and the corresponding Section 148 of the BSA, is to ensure a
fair trial. The object and purpose of these rules appear to be
for a fair and disciplined method to produce the documents
so that they are made known to the other party well in
advance of the commencement of the trial, and not put the
other party to surprise. However, the procedures under the
CPC that govern the production of documents also carve out
exceptions permitting a party to produce a document for the
cross-examination of a witness of the other party or to hand
Page no. 17 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
over a document to a witness to refresh memory, thereby
supporting a fair adjudication of the dispute.
CONCLUSIONS:
24. The CPC is a procedural law that governs the
procedure to be followed in civil suits, appeals, revision
applications, review applications, etc., by our civil courts. The
CPC does not deal with substantive evidence to be adduced
in suits. Whereas the Evidence Act and the BSA are
substantive laws that deal with evidence. It also contains the
procedural aspects, such as the order of production and
examination of witnesses, as provided in Section 135 of the
Evidence Act (Section 140 of the BSA).
25. Rule 14 of Order VII and Rule 1A of Order VIII contain
procedural provisions laying down the requirement of
production of documents which are relied upon in the
pleadings, which are in possession of the parties to the suit.
The requirement is to produce such documents with a plaint
or a written statement. The sub-rule (3) of both provisions
states that if such documents are not produced with the
pleadings, they can be received in evidence only with the
Court’s permission. The sub-rule (4) of both these provisions
Page no. 18 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
provides that the requirement to produce the documents
along with the pleadings, or only with the leave of the Court
later on, does not apply to documents required for cross-
examination. In other words, the documents required for
cross-examination need not necessarily be produced with the
pleadings, and their production does not require leave of the
Court.
26. Section 145 of the Evidence Act (Section 148 of the
BSA) permits a party to cross-examine the witnesses by
contradicting them with the previous statement of the
witnesses made in writing. This can be done only if the
previous statement is relevant to the matters in question in
the proceedings in which the evidence is being recorded.
Therefore, the Court must allow a party to contradict a
witness by showing him his previous statement, which was
not produced earlier, provided it is relevant to the matters in
question. After a party is allowed to contradict a witness by
showing his previous statement in writing, the settled practice
consistently followed by the Civil Courts in our State requires
that the document be marked as an exhibit. Therefore, the
document must be taken on record, and for doing so, leave
Page no. 19 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
of the Court is not required. Therefore, the Court recording
the evidence must permit a party to produce a document for
cross-examination of the witness or to hand over a document
to refresh the witness's memory, on the touchstone of
Section 145 of the Evidence Act (Section 148 of BSA).
27. In view of the well-established legal principles by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Wahid, as discussed
above, the observations in the decision of Laxmikant Sinal
Lotlekar cannot be read as a binding precedent to hold that
no document that is meant to prove the original case can be
permitted to be produced in the cross-examination of a
witness of the opposite party, if it is not produced while filing
the plaint, written statement or at the time of settlement of
issues. Hence, the arguments made by the learned counsel
for the plaintiffs, relying upon the decision in Laxmikant Sinal
Lotlekar, cannot be accepted.
28. In the present case, the defendant has pleaded about
payments made to the plaintiffs. Thus, the documents sought
to be produced during the cross-examination of plaintiff no.1
for confronting him with the documents would fall under the
law governing the cross-examination of a witness as
Page no. 20 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
provided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act (Section 148
of BSA), read with the exceptions provided under the
procedural law for production of documents under the CPC
as discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
29. There is no substance in the submissions made on
behalf of the plaintiffs that, because the defendant no.1’s
application to amend the written statement to add particulars
of the payment receipts was rejected, he would not be
entitled to produce the documents at the time of cross-
examination. The documents sought to be produced to
confront plaintiff no. 1 cannot be said to be divorced from or
foreign to the pleadings, as the written statement contains
the pleadings regarding payments made to the plaintiffs, and
the dispute involved in the suit pertains to the payments
towards the consideration amount of the sale deeds under
challenge.
30. The production of a document during the cross-
examination of a witness is governed by the exceptions
provided under Orders VII, VIII, and XIII of the CPC and must
be dealt with in the context of Section 145 of the Evidence
Act (Section 148 of BSA). The Hon’ble Apex Court in
Page no. 21 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
Mohammed Wahid has clarified in paragraph 39 that the
documents that are not divorced from or foreign to the
pleadings made can be permitted to be produced during the
cross-examination of a witness, for the effective cross-
examination, or to jog the memory of the witness. Hence, in
view of the exceptions provided under the procedural law for
production of documents under the CPC and Section 145 of
the Evidence Act (Section 148 of BSA), I do not see any
impediment in permitting defendant no. 1 to produce the
documents as per the list at Exhibit 118 produced along with
the application at Exhibit 117 for cross-examination of
plaintiff no. 1.
31. The defendant was not required to file a separate
application for the production of documents, in as much as
he is entitled to produce the documents to confront the
witness of the other party, i.e. plaintiff no. 1 at the time of
cross-examination, by relying upon the exceptions provided
under the Order VIII and XIII of the CPC, as discussed in the
preceding paragraphs, and in view of the principles set out in
Section 145 of the Evidence Act (Section 148 of BSA). Thus,
filing a separate application by defendant no. 1 to produce
Page no. 22 of 23
1-WP-8080-2022.doc
the documents after commencement of the cross-
examination of plaintiff no. 1 is to exercise the right to
confront plaintiff no. 1 with the documents, which is
permissible under the law as discussed in the above
paragraphs.
32. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is
allowed by passing the following order:
(a)The impugned order dated 8th December 2021, passed
by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khed,
Rajgurunagar, below Exhibit 117 in Special Civil Suit
No. 385 of 2014, is quashed and set aside.
(b)The Trial Court shall permit defendant no. 1 to produce
the documents as per the list at Exhibit 118, filed along
with the application at Exhibit 117, to confront plaintiff
no. 1 during his cross-examination.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
Page no. 23 of 23
Checking your session…