Bombay High Court
Sujitkumar S/O Gautamprasad Jaiswal ... vs Abhijeet S/O Vishwas Ramekar And ... on 4 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11406
J-wp4206.22.odt 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.4206 OF 2022
1. Sujitkumar s/o. Gautamprasad Jaiswal,
Aged about 43 years,
Occupation : Business.
2. Suraj s/o. Gautamprasad Jaiswal,
Aged about 40 years,
Occupation : Business.
3. Sunilkumar s/o. Gautamprasad Jaiswal,
Aged about 37 years,
Occupation : Business.
All the petitioners R/o. Bangar Nagar,
Yavatmal, Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal. : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. Abhijeet s/o. Vishwas Ramekar,
Aged about 27 years,
Occupation : Education,
R/o. Village Kamathwada, Tq. Darwha,
District Yavatmal,
At present R/o. C/o. Nilesh Bondhade,
Flat No.303, Building No.6,
Agrawal Peace Heaven, Wasai (W) 401 202.
2. Vishwas s/o. Mahadeorao Ramekar,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Village Kamathwada, Tq. Darwha,
District Yavatmal, : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. S.O. Ahmed, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. Anup Dhore, Advocate for Respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
J-wp4206.22.odt 2/9
CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.
RESERVED ON : 16th OCTOBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 04th NOVEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India challenging order passed below Exh.-83
in Special Civil Suit No.3/2013, by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Yavatmal, whereby application for production of the documents
came to be rejected.
3. The facts shorn of details can best be stated as under :
The petitioners before this Court are the original
plaintiffs and filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.3/2013,
before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal. The said suit was
for specific performance of contract embodied in agreement dated
8.4.2005. Since the said agreement was for sale of the property, it
was stated in the plaint that as there was a breach of the agreement
constraining the plaintiffs to file the suit. The suit was preceded by
various letters/intimations/legal notices as stated in the plaint and
which would not be germane for deciding the controversy in the
present matter.
4. The respondents i.e. the defendants in the suit filed a
written statement thereby opposing the contents of the plaint. The
respondent No.1 by filing Pursis adopted the written statement filed
by the respondent No.2 and on 7.4.2016 the petitioners i.e. the
original plaintiffs have filed their evidence on affidavit and the
witness was further examined and cross-examined by the adversary.
5. It is stated in the writ petition that on 28.2.2022, the
respondent No.1 filed an application below Exh.-77 for permission
to file certain documents which consists of his saving pass-book of
Union Bank of India which was allowed by the trial Court without
even obtaining say of the other side.
6. It is further stated in the petition that at the time of
cross-examination of the defendant No.1/respondent No.1 the
counsel for the petitioners confronted him with the counter
receipts/file of three cheques and queried him about his signature
appearing on the said counterfoils. The witness i.e. the defendant
No.1 (respondent No.1) admitted his signatures on the counterfoil.
However, since the said documents were not filed on record, an
application seeking permission to file those documents was filed on
record below Exh.-23 seeking permission from the Court. The said
application was opposed by the respondents and the trial Court
passed an order below Exh,-83 thereby rejecting the application
prompting the filing of the present writ petition.
7. I have heard Mr. S.O. Ahmed, learned counsel for
petitioners and Mr. Anup Dhore, learned counsel for the
respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
trial Court has gravely erred in rejecting the application seeking
permission to place the documents on record. It is his submission
that considering the provisions of Order XIV Rule 3 the document
can be produced on record at any stage of the suit and since the
relevance of the documents was very well stated in the application
below Exh.-83. He further states that no prejudice of whatsoever
nature would be caused to any of the parties and therefore, the trial
Court would have been liberal enough to grant permission for the
same. He relies on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs. Nilofer and another, reported in
(2024) 2 SCC 144 states that as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that there is no difference between a party to a suit as a witness and
a witness simpliciter and, therefore, 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 within law.
9. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Anup Dhore, for the
respondents vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioners. He states that cogent reasons
have been stated by the trial Court in the order impugned which
cannot be termed as perverse and, therefore, the order doesn't
warrant any interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
10. In the light of these submissions, I have perused the
record of the matter. As can be seen from the impugned order, the
trial Court has recorded a finding that a reading of provisions of
Order VII Rule 14 makes it clear that the said provision is applicable
for cross-examination of the plaintiffs only and not applicable for
cross-examination of the defendants. However, it seems that the
trial Court has lost sight of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1-A of the
Civil Procedure Code. Thus, the order in my view, as far as
applicability of provisions of Order VII Rule 14 for the cross-
examination of the plaintiffs is perverse.
11. Furthermore, as rightly relied upon by the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs, in the judgment referred supra two
questions fell for consideration of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which
are stated as under :
10. In the above backdrop, the
questions we have been called upon to
adjudicate on are :
10.1. (a) 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 ?
10.2. (b) Whether, under law, and
more specifically, Order 7 Rule 14; Order 8
Rule 1-A; Order 13 Rule 1, etc. enjoin 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?
12. It is noteworthy to mention that the matter before the
Apex Court was challenging the judgment of this Court which held
that a party to a suit i.e. plaintiffs or the defendants cannot be
equated with a witness and the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 are
applicable to a witness only. It further held that the documents can
be directly produced at the stage of cross-examination of a witness
only (who is not a party to the suit) to confront the witness for
refreshing his memory under Order VII Rule 14(4). This
observation of this Court has been set aside by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the judgment referred supra. The relevant paras of the
Hon'ble Apex Court are reproduced as under :
39. A reading of the judgments above would
imply that substance is what the courts need
to look into, and therefore, in reference to
the production of documents, in the
considered view of this court, so long as the
document is produced for the limited purpose
of effective cross-examination or to jog the
memory of the witness at the stand is not
completely divorced from or foreign to the
pleadings made, the same cannot be said to
fly in the face of this established proposition.
40. Save and except the cross-examination
part of a civil suit, at no other point shall
such confrontation be allowed, without such
document having accompanied the plaint or
written statement filed before the court. For
this purpose, reference be made to Order 7
Rule 14(4)(This Rule speaks of the plaintiff
necessarily listing in his plaint and, producing
before the court, the documents upon which
they seek to place reliance, in support of his
claim. Sub-rule (4) exempts from this
obligation documents produced for the
limited purpose of cross-examination or to
jog the memory of a witness), Order 8 Rule
1A(4)(a) [This Rule speaks of the defendant
necessarily listing in his Written Statement
and, producing before the court the
documents upon which they seek to place
reliance, in defense of his claim for set-off or
counterclaim. Sub-rule (4) exempts from this
obligation documents produced for the
limited purpose of cross-examination or to
jog the memory of a witness] and Order 13
Rule 1(3) [This Rule speaks of either party or
their pleaders obligatorily producing, post the
settlement of issues in a suit, the
documentary evidence upon which reliance is
placed. Sub-rule (3) exempts from this
obligation documents produced for the
limited purpose of cross-examination or to
jog the memory of a witness], all three of
which, while dealing with the production of
documents, by the plaintiff, defendant and in
general, respectively, exempt documents to
be produced for the limited purpose of cross-
examination or jogging the memory of the
witness.
41. In light of the above discussion, and
the answer in the negative to the first
question before this court, meaning thereby
that there is no difference between a party to
a suit as a witness and a witness simpliciter-
the second issue in this appeal, in view of the
provisions noticed above, 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 within law.
42. The questions raised in the instant lis
are answered in the above terms. The appeal
is allowed.
43. In view of the discussion hereinabove,
the judgment of the Division Bench in WP
No.7717 of 2019 titled as Mohd. Abdul
Wahid v. Nilofer with WP No. 6931 of 2019
titled as Kantabai v. Sudhir dated 9-2-2021
by the Bombay High Court, is set aside."
13. In the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Court stated
supra I am afraid that the order of the trial Court cannot be
sustained.
14. In that view of the matter, the order impugned is
perverse rendering interference in writ jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, liable to
be allowed and following order is passed :
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in following
terms.
(ii) The order dated 21.6.2022, passed below
Exh.-83 in Special Civil Suit No.3/2013, by the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Yavatmal, is quashed and set aside. However, looking to
the fact that the documents are produced during cross-examination
of the defendant, liberty is granted to the defendant to take
recourse to appropriate legal remedy in that regard.
(iii) The application at Exh.-83 in the said civil
suit stands allowed.
(iv) Order accordingly. Rule is discharged.
(v) Parties to bear their own costs.
(NANDESH DESHPANDE, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/11/2025 17:12:08
