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 J-wp4206.22.odt 3/9 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 J-wp4206.22.odt 4/9 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 J-wp4206.22.odt 5/9 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 :J-wp4206.22.odt 6/9
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 J-wp4206.22.odt 7/9 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 J-wp4206.22.odt 8/9 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.J-wp4206.22.odt 9/9
(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