.jpg)
Vaidehi Sharma,
Law college Dehradun, Uttaranchal University
CITATION | 2023 INSC 1075 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT | 14thDECEMBER, 2023
|
COURT | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
|
APPELLANT | MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHID |
RESPONDENT | NILOFER & ANR. |
BENCH | JUSTICE B.R GAVAI AND JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
INTRODUCTION
In a recent ruling in Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer &Anrthe Hon. Supreme Court decided, among other things, whether the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), by the language it chose, distinguishes between a "party to a suit" and a "witness in a suit." Particularly, when interpreting the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 [Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies]; Order VIII Rule 1A(4)(a) [Duty of Defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him]; and Order XIII Rule 1(3)(a) [Original Documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues] of the CPC, can a plaintiff or a defendant be equated to a witness?
The Apex Court ruled that "witness and parties to a suit, for the purposes of adducing evidence, either documentary or oral, are on the same footing," as interpreted by Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol. As a result, the following apply: (i) the CPC's regulations do not distinguish between a "party to a suit as a witness" and a "witness simpliciter"; and (ii) during the cross-examination phase, documents may be introduced to confront both parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Mohammed Abdul Wahid, also known as the Original Plaintiff/Appellant, brought a writ suit before the Bombay, Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature. In this petition, the Trial Court's decision to deny the Appellant's request for authorization to present specific documents and present them to Nilofer (Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1) during the cross-examination phase was contested.The High Court's Single Judge opted to submit the case to a Larger Bench for consideration after observing divergent opinions in earlier rulings, citing Vinayak M. Desai v. Ulhas N. Naik and Ors. and Purushottam v. Gajanan in particular.
The High Court ruled in the Purushottam case that a party (plaintiff or defendant) could not be treated like a witness and that, in order to protect the party from surprises, they could not be presented with papers during cross-examination. On the other hand, it was said in Vinayak that a party might be treated as a witness in some situations due to a number of Evidence Act provisions, such as Section 120, which permits parties to be competent witnesses.After analysing these contradictory rulings, the High Court's Division Bench determined that a party to a lawsuit is not the same as a witness and that documents may be immediately shown to a witness during cross-examination as long as the witness is not a party to the lawsuit.
Following this ruling, the Division Bench of the High Court's decision was contested in an appeal to the Honourable Supreme Court. In determining whether to consider a party as a witness and whether to allow the production of documents during cross-examination, the Supreme Court will be tasked with conducting a thorough assessment and rendering a decision on the interpretation of pertinent provisions of the CPC and the Evidence Act.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether under the Code of Civil Procedure, there is envisaged, a difference between a party to a suit and a witness in a suit? In other words, does the phrase plaintiff’s/ defendant’s witness exclude the plaintiff or defendant themselves, when they appear as witnesses in their own cause?
2. 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/defendant’s witness or 11-SLP (C) No.14445 of 2021 witnesses of the other party, when cross examining the opposite party?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, the learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, made several submissions challenging the conclusion reached by the High Court in the case.
1. Mr. Ahmadi contended that the ruling of the High Court contravenes several sections of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), including Order VII Rule 14(4), Order VI Rule 21, and Order VIII Rule 1(A) (4) (a) (b). He drew attention to the specific exclusion of Order VII Rule 14(4)'s provisions from the cross-examination of plaintiffs' witnesses and witnesses brought forward to jog a witness's recollection. He maintained that this exception was meant to be.
2. Mr. Ahmadi argued that the applicable rule's use of the term "plaintiff's witnesses" does not mean to exclude the plaintiff; rather, it refers to all witnesses called at the petitioner's request, which may include the petitioner himself.
3. He contended that, in contravention to the real rules of the CPC, the impugned judgement falsely says that all documents—rather than only those cited in the plaint—shall be barred from being used in cross-examination unless they are filed earlier.
4. Referring to Order VIII Rule 1, the general rule governing the production of documents, Mr. Ahmadi drew attention to the exception made by sub-rule 3, which declares that papers generated for particular purposes are exempt from the rule of prior production.
5. Order VI Rule 21 was cited, and Mr. Ahmadi contended that it refutes the logic of the High Court's decision to distinguish between a party and a witness.
6. Mr. Ahmadi contended that the High Court's distinction is in violation of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which does not distinguish between a party acting as a witness and a witness simpliciter. He cited the Evidence Act's Sections 120, 137, and 155–160.
7. According to Mr. Ahmadi, the High Court's established principle will eliminate any chance of successful cross-examination since it eliminates the opportunity to confront or surprise a witness while they are testifying. He contended that it may violate the basic rule of pleadings to stipulate only material facts since it requires parties to fully reveal their arguments, defences, and supporting documentation in the pleadings.
CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT
Dr. R.S. Sundaram, the learned counsel representing Respondent No.1, presented counter-submissions to the points raised by Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, the senior counsel for the petitioner.
1. Orders I to XX of the CPC, according to Dr. Sundaram, define a party as both a plaintiff and a defendant. On the other hand, the purpose of a witness is to bolster and/or validate a certain plea offered by the involved parties.
2. Citing Order XVI Rule 21 and emphasising the word "insofar as applicable," Dr. Sundaram said the rule governs a party's behaviour during a witness statement. He maintained that this sentence clearly distinguishes between parties and witnesses when taken into account in conjunction with other Code sections. Order VIII Rule 1(A), (4) (a), Order VII Rule 14(4), and Order XIII Rule 1 (3) were mentioned.
3. In contrast to the appellant's argument, Dr. Sundaram maintained that Order XIII Rule 1(3) is straightforward and clear, requiring no interpretation. He claims that the provision implies that a document can be created and shown to a witness in order to verify its accuracy, and that the parties to the lawsuit should not be implied to be included in the wording.
4. According to Dr. Sundaram, the Code does not provide for the element of surprise against a party who is being cross-examined. He drew attention to the fact that some rules require the initial filing of papers that form the basis of the defence or the litigation. Order VI Rule 9, which stipulates that all documents provided must have content that is relevant and clearly indicated in the pleadings, was cited, contradicting the element of surprise.
5. According to Dr. Sundaram, the terms "plaintiff's witness and defendant's witness" are clear-cut and should be used literally.
6. In his closing remarks, Dr. Sundaram said that the Division Bench of the High Court had rightly utilised the rules of interpretation to address the three concerns posed by the referring court after taking into account the numerous laws previously indicated.
JUDGEMENT
The notion that a "party to a suit" and a "witness to a suit" cannot be compared was rejected by the Honourable Supreme Court. It declared unequivocally that a party to a lawsuit is on an equal footing with a witness for the purposes of introducing evidence. The Evidence Act's Section 120, which designates participants to a lawsuit as competent witnesses in civil proceedings, was taken into consideration by the court. It also cited Order XVI, Rule 21 of theCPC, which states that any party who is asked to provide testimony or provide a document is subject to the same rules that apply to witnesses.The court stressed that for the purpose of presenting evidence, the aforementioned regulations eliminate any distinction between a party and a witness.It rejected the respondent's literal meaning, claiming that to accept it would result in a distinction that the Code had not intended.
As far as confronting a party during cross-examination goes, the Supreme Court upheld the admissibility of documents for this purpose. It did, however, specify two requirements: (i) the document must be produced in order to effectively cross-examine the witness or jog their memory; and (ii) it cannot be wholly "foreign" in relation to the parties' pleadings.
The court made it clear that such a confrontation with papers is not permitted unless the documents accompany the plaint or written declaration filed before the court, with the exception of the cross-examination portion of a civil litigation. Order VII Rule 14(4) was cited, which exempts documents provided for the specific purpose of cross-examination or to help jog a witness's recollection from the requirement of being listed and produced with the plaint.
The Supreme Court established the equal footing of parties and witnesses for the purpose of adducing evidence and clarified the circumstances under which documents can be produced at the cross-examination stage.
Top of Form
ANALYSIS
In delivering its decision, the Honourable Supreme Court tackled the question of whether a "party to a suit" and a "witness to a suit" are equivalent in terms of providing testimony. The Court categorically declared that all parties and witnesses in a lawsuit are on same footing for both oral and documentary evidence, rejecting the claim that these two entities cannot be compared. The Court grounded its ruling in the interpretation of pertinent provisions, emphasising in particular:
1. The Evidence Act's Section 120 states that participants to a lawsuit and their spouses are qualified witnesses in all civil proceedings.
2. Rule 21 of CPC Order XVI: This regulation makes it clear that in the event that any party is asked to provide testimony or turn over a document, the provisions related to witness apply to them
The Court reasoned that it would be against the intent of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to adopt a literal interpretation that makes a distinction between parties and witnesses for the purpose of adducing evidence. The ruling stressed that in order for witnesses and parties to provide evidence, they must have equal standing. The Court confirmed that documents could be introduced at this point in order to challenge both a party and a witness with regard to the production of documents during cross-examination. But it made clear that this kind of production needs to fulfil a few requirements:
Bringing up papers should be done to get the witness's attention or to carry out a successful cross-examination. The pleadings made by the parties should not be fully represented by the documents as "foreign."
CONCLUSION
The Court summed up the legal position by saying that confrontation with documents is permitted only if those papers were filed with the plaint or written statement that was submitted to the court, with the exception of the cross-examination portion of a civil complaint. In order to bolster its argument, it cited Order VII Rule 14(4), which emphasises that the plaintiff must enumerate and present all pertinent documentation supporting their allegation, with the exception of records generated for the specific purpose of reviving a witness's memory or conducting a cross-examination. In conclusion, the judgment establishes the equal footing of parties and witnesses for the purposes of adducing evidence, rejecting a literal interpretation that would create an unintended distinction. It also clarifies the conditions under which documents can be produced during cross-examination, providing a nuanced approach to maintain fairness and avoid surprises in the legal process.
Top of Form
REFERENCES
Comments