MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHID versus NILOFER & ANR

MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHID versus NILOFER & ANR

The Court held that there is no substantive difference between a party to a suit when testifying and a witness simpliciter for purposes of adducing evidence; the term 'witness' includes a party who appears to give evidence, and therefore documents may be produced at the stage of cross-examination to confront or refresh the memory of either witnesses or parties testifying, within the limits of the Code and consistent with pleadings; accordingly the High Court's division-bench judgment drawing a rigid distinction was set aside.

Parties
Appellant: MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHID; Respondents: NILOFER & ANR
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Production of Documents, Cross Examination, Party Appearing as Witness, Interpretation of CPC Provisions
Civil Procedure Evidence Pleadings Trial Procedure Production of Documents Cross Examination Party Appearing as Witness Interpretation of CPC Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHID

Appellant

NILOFER & ANR

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party to a suit (plaintiff/defendant) is distinct from a witness and whether the phrase plaintiff's/defendant's witness excludes the plaintiff or defendant when they testify in their own cause
  2. 2 Whether Order VII r.14, Order VIII r.1-A and Order XIII r.1 CPC prohibit a party undertaking cross-examination of a party to produce documents at the stage of cross-examination by virtue of the phrases plaintiff's/defendant's witness or witnesses of the other party
  3. 3 Whether documents can be directly produced at the stage of cross-examination to confront or refresh the memory of a party who is testifying

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that there is no substantive difference between a party to a suit when testifying and a witness simpliciter for purposes of adducing evidence; the term 'witness' includes a party who appears to give evidence, and therefore documents may be produced at the stage of cross-examination to confront or refresh the memory of either witnesses or parties testifying, within the limits of the Code and consistent with pleadings; accordingly the High Court's division-bench judgment drawing a rigid distinction was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 09.02.2021 in WP No.7717 of 2019 set aside
  • Original petition restored to the file of the High Court for decision on merits in accordance with law