Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)

Alice vs Moly on 3 February, 2022

14. It is true that by way of amendment brought into the Code of Civil Procedure by Act 22/2002 came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2002, the legal position as to production of documents before amendment was changed. But then also the procedure for confronting documents during cross-examination of a witness is the same. OP(C) Nos.173 & 174 of 2022 12 In this connection, another decision reported in Bhima Jewellery and Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. v. Sandeep Kumar [2020 (5) KLT 40] placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner also is relevant. In the said case, also this Court in paragraph No.21 held that when the whole purpose is to contradict a witness, it becomes unnecessary to expatiate that the element of surprise is crucial. Axiomatically, it will be incongruous to even suggest that a document or statement used for such must be produced earlier, since the witness certainly will then modulate his response to it by pre-preparation.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suji K vs Usha K on 23 January, 2025

In Bhima Jewellery and Diamonds (P) Ltd. v. O. Sandeep Kumar; reported in (2020 KHC 550), this court held that the law entitles a party to contradict a witness for the opposite side with a document not produced earlier, along with the written statement since an exception is carved out in clause 4 of Order 8 Rule 1-A. When the whole purpose is to 8 OPC 2988/2024 2025:KER:11197 contradict a witness, it becomes unnecessary to expatiate that the element of surprise is crucial and the object behind the cross-examination itself will be defeated as the witness will then modulate his response accordingly by pre-preparation, if the documents were received beforehand.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1