1

SUMMARYOFWORKSHOPNOTES
SUBJECT : RECORDINGOFEVIDENCE Ruleasto
evidence beyond pleading, crossexamination, production of
documents along with examinationinchief and cross
examination,admissibilityandproofofdocuments,impounding
etc.andadditionalevidence.
1.

Ruleastoevidencebeyondpleading
Thewholeobjectofpleadingsistobringthepartiestoan

issue and the meaning of the rules was to prevent the issue being
enlarged, which would prevent either party fromknowingwhenthe
causecameonfortrial,whattherealpointtobediscussedanddecided
was.Infact,thewholemeaningofthesystemistonarrowtheparties
todefiniteissuesandtherebytodiminishexpenseanddelay,especially
as regards the amount of testimony required on either side at the
hearing(ThropVs.Holdswort).
Apartycannotadduceevidenceandsetacaseinconsistent
with his pleadings. No amount of proof can substitute pleadings
whicharethefoundationofaclaimofalitigatingparty.Thus,when
pleadings are silent on an issue, the party is precluded from
adducing evidence in respect of that issue. The court should be

vigilantwhilerecordingtheevidence.TheJudgeshouldbeawareof
thepleadingsof thepartiesandshallbeonguardtopreventthe
evidencebeinggivensanspleading.
Itmaysometimehappenthattheotherpartymaynotraise
objection when the evidence without pleading is being given and
suchevidencecomestoberecorded.However,eventhen,thecourt
cannot act upon such evidence as there are no pleadings in that
respect.In KamaludinSumaniVs.ManuelBarretoXavier&ors,
2012(4)AllMR256itisheldthatifthepleadingsareabsentona
particulargroundandifevidenceisledthensuchevidenceisofno
use. Itisheldin Rajgopal..Vs..KishanGopal,A.I.R.2003S.C.
4319 that when there is no pleading regarding certain issue, no
findingcanbegivendespiteevidence.
Incrossexaminationalso,apartycannotsuggestacasetoa
witnessnotpleadedbyhim.
Thepleadingshowevershouldreceivealiberalconstruction.
no pedanticapproachshouldbe adoptedtodefeatjusticeonhair
splittingtechnicalities.Sometimes,pleadingsareexpressedinwords
whichmaynotexpresslymakeoutacaseinaccordancewithstrict
interpretationoflaw. Insuchacase,itisthedutyofthecourtto
ascertainthesubstanceofthepleadingstodeterminethequestion.It
is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead, the
substance of the pleadings should be considered. Whenever the

questionaboutlackofpleadingisraised,theenquiryshouldnotbe
somuchabouttheformofpleadings,instead,thecourtmustfind
outwhetherinsubstancethepartiesknewthecaseandtheissues
upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that in spite of
deficiency in the pleadings, parties knew the case and they
proceeded to trial on those issue by producing evidence, in that
eventitwouldnotbeopentoapartytoraisethequestionofabsence
ofpleadingsinappeal.
2. CROSSEXAMINATION
AsperOrder18Rule4ofC.P.C.thecrossexaminationof
a witness is to be recorded either by the court or by the
commissionerappointedbyit.Acommissionerisnotempoweredto
decide any objection raised during the crossexamination of a
witness.Thecommissionerhastorecordthequestionobjectedto,
theobjectionandanswergivenbythewitness.Itisthecourtwhich
hastodecidetheobjectionatthetimeofargument.
Order18Rule11providesthatwhereanyquestionput
toawitnessisobjectedtobyapartyorhispleaderandthecourt
allowsthesametobeput,theJudgeshalltakedownthequestion,
the answer, the objection and the name of the person making it
togetherwiththedecisionofthecourtthereon.
Themainpurposeofcrossexaminationofthewitnessis

totesttheveracityofthewitness.Soalso,thequestionsinthecross
examinationcanbeaskedtodiscoverwhothewitnessisandwhatis
hispositioninlifeandtoshakehiscredit.Theleadingquestionsare
permitted during the crossexamination. If a person wants to
contradict a witness as to his previous statement in writing, his
attentionmust,beforethewritingcanbeproved,becalledtothose
partsofitwhicharetobeusedforthepurposeofcontradictinghim.
However, he may be crossexamined on his previous statements
made by him in writing or reduced into writing without showing
suchawritingtohim.Wheneverawitnessfailstosupport,theparty
callinghimcancrossexaminethewitnesswiththepermissionofthe
Court.

3.Productionofdocumentalongwithchiefexamination
andcrossexamination.

OrderVIIRule14requirestheproductionofdocuments
onwhichplaintiffsuesorreliesatthetimeofpresentationofplaint.
Order8Rule1(A)ofC.P.C.providesforproductionofdocumentsby
defendantalongwithwrittenstatement.

As per order XIII Rule 1 original documents should be

producedatorbeforethesettlementofissues.OrderXIIIRule1Sub
rule3hascarvedoutfollowingexceptionstoaboverule

(a)

documents produced for the crossexamination of the

witnessesoftheotherparty,

(b)

documentshandedovertoawitnessmerelytorefreshhis
memory.
Order18Rule4(1)ofC.P.C.providesthatineverycase,

theexaminationinchiefofawitnessshallbeonaffidavitandcopies
thereofshallbesuppliedtotheoppositepartybythepartywhocalls
himforevidence.
Providedthatwheredocumentsarefiledandthepartiesrely
uponthedocuments,theproofandadmissibilityofsuchdocuments
whicharefiledalongwithaffidavitshallbesubjecttotheordersof
thecourt.
Thisrulerevealsthatthedocumentscanbefiledalongwith
thechiefexamination.Thecourtwillthendecidewhethertheyare
admissibleandifyes,whetherthedocumentisprovedproperly.
ItistheintentionoflegislationbyamendingRule4(1)of
Order XVIII of C.P.C., to save valuable time of the Court and the
litigants. Order XVIII Rule 4 makes it clear that while recording
evidence, the witness shall file an affidavit, produce copies of
documentswhichoughttobesuppliedtotheoppositeparty. To
disallowtheproductionitselfwouldbeincorrectasobservedinthe

caseofBalkrushnaS.S.Kakodkarvs.RamaBabalvastareportedin
A.I.R.2005Bombay200.
In Durgashankar S. Trivedi Vs. Babubhai Bhulabhai
Parekh2003(2)MaharashtraLawJournal576 itwasobserved
that,itistobeborneinmindthatorderXVIIIRule4doesnotdeal
withtheprovisionrelatingtoadmissionandexhibitionofdocuments
in evidence. It only permits the parties and their witnesses to
producethedocumentsalongwithaffidavit.
In Purshottam Shankar Ghodgaonkar Vs. Gajanan
ShankarGhodgaonkar,2012(6) Mh.L.J.648 theHon'bleHigh
Courthad occasiontodealwiththecasewhereindocumentswere
produced during the crossexamination of the defendant. The
Hon'ble High Court observed that during crossexamination of
defendant, the plaintiff sought production of documents for
contradicting defendant No.1's version about the acquiring the
propertiesfromhisownincome.Thereisdistinctionbetweenaterm
with reference to the parties to the suit. Though production of
documentscanbeallowedforcrossexaminationofwitnessofthe
otherparty,thedocumentscannotbeproducedatthetimeofcross
examination of opposite party by casting surprise upon him.
Defendant cannot be confronted by the plaintiff by producing
documentsforthefirsttimeduringthecrossexaminationanditwas
notopenforthetrialCourttoallowtheproductionofdocumentsto

confronttheoriginaldefendant. AccordinglyorderoftrialCourt
wherebytheproductionofdocumentswasallowed,wasquashed.
The defence advocate may refer the documents of
defendanttotheplaintiffduringhiscrossexamination.Thereisno
need to wait till defendant's turn comes to lead the evidence,
becausethedefencesidemaychoosenottostepintowitnessboxat
all. Asfarasplaintiffisconcerned,heshouldnotdoso.Because,
generallyitisplaintiffwhobeginsfirstandhehasnochoiceasnot
toenterintowitnessbox.
4.

ADMISSIBILITYANDPROOFOFDOCUMENTS.

Admissibilityofdocumentsandproofofdocumentsare
twodifferentthings.Admissibilitymeansacceptingadocumentin
evidence and considering it while deciding a matter. Some
documentscannotbeadmittedinevidenceunlesstheysatisfysome
legalconditions.Somedocumentsrequirecompulsoryregistrationas
persection17oftheIndianRegistrationActfore.g.asaledeedof
immovable property worth more than Rs 100/, a gift deed of
immovable property. Some documents require attestation. Unless
such documents satisfy these legal requirement, they cannot be
admittedastheevidenceofthetransactiontherein.
Theproofofdocumentimpliestheprocedureforprovinga

document. The general rule is that the document itself must be

produced before the court which is called primary evidence.
However,insomecircumstances,secondaryevidenceofcontentsof
document can also be given. For adducing secondary evidence, a
partyhastolayfoundationasperSection65oftheEvidenceAct.A
partytoadocumentisacompetentwitnesstoproveadocument.
Thus,asaledeedcanbeprovedbyanyofthepartiesthereto.Itis
notnecessarytoinsistforcallinganattestingwitnessbecause,itis
notadocumentwhichisrequiredtobeattestedbylaw.Itisonlyin
case of a document statutorily requiring attestation, an attesting
witnessistobeexaminedifalive(section68oftheEvidenceAct).
OBJECTIONASTOADMISSIBILITY:

There are two types of objection as to admission of a

document in evidence. First is that the document itself is

inadmissible in evidence.Thesecondtypeofobjectionisthat the
modeofproofisirregular.In Smt.Dayamathi..Vs..K.M.Shaffi,
A.I.R.2004S.C.4082,itisheldthatobjectionastomodeofproofis
proceduralandcanbewaived.Thisobjectionhastobetakenbefore
thetrialcourt.Itcannotbetakenforthefirsttimeinappeal.

As regards inadmissibility of document itself, merely

because a document is marked as Exhibit, the objection as to its

inadmissibility is not excluded and can be taken at later stage.

However, in case of irregularity of proof, objection is to be taken

whenthedocumentissoughttobeadmitted.Thetestiswhetheran
objection,iftakenattheappropriatetime,wouldhaveenabledthe
partytocurethedefectandresorttosuchmodeofproofaswouldbe
regular.Theomissiontoobjectbecomesfatalasitcausesthepartyto
assumethattheotherpartyisnotseriousaboutthemodeofproof.

Regarding the admissibility of the documents, it is

necessarytoreferthefullbenchjudgmentofour HighCourt in
HemendraRasiklalGhiya&OthsVs.SubodhModi&Oths.2008
(6)Mh.L.J.,886Priortosaidcase,therewereconflictingdecisions
onthepointofproof,admissibilityandimpoundingofdocuments.
Onelimbofdecisionwasthat,itisnecessaryfortheCourttodecide
about the admissibility of document before they are exhibited in
evidence and on the other side, some decisions were saying that
admissibilityofevidenceandproofofdocumentshouldbereserved
untiljudgmentinthecaseisgiven.Hence,thematterwasreferredto
fullbench.TheHon'bleLordshipsformulatedtwoquestions(A)At
which stage the objection to the admissibility and/or proof of
document which may be produced or tendered should be raised,
consideredanddecidedbytheCourt.(B)Atwhichstageobjectionto
theadmissibilityorrelevancyofevidencecontainedintheaffidavit
filedunderOrderXVIIIRule4oftheCivilProcedureCodeshouldbe
consideredanddecidedbytheCourt.Afterconsideringthevarious
caselawsoftheHon'bleApexCourtandprovisionsofCodeofCivil

10

Procedure and Bombay Civil Manual, the Hon'ble Lordships

answeredquestion(A)and(B)asfollows.

Question(A)
(i): Objection to the document sought to be produced
relating to the deficiency of stamp duty must be taken when the
document is tendered in evidence and such objection must be
judiciallydeterminedbeforeitismarkedasexhibit.
(ii): Objection relating to the proof of document of which
admissibility is not in dispute must be taken and judicially
determinedwhenitismarkedasexhibit.
(iii): The objection to the document which in itself is
inadmissible in evidence can be admittedat anystage ofthe suit
reservingdecisiononquestionuntilfinaljudgmentinthecase.The
Hon'bleHighCourtaddedawordofcautionthatwhileexercising
discretionjudiciouslyfortheadvancementofthecauseofjusticefor
thereasonstoberecorded,theCourtcanalwaysworkoutitsown
modalitydependinguponpeculiarfactsofeachcasewithoutcausing
prejudicetotherightsofthepartiestomeettheendsofjusticeand
nottogivethehandletoeitherofthepartiestoprotractlitigation.
Question(B)
Hon'bleLordshipsansweredquestion(B)astheobjection
to the admissibility or relevancy of evidence contained in the

11

affidavitofevidencefiledunderOrder18Rule4canbeadmittedat
anystagereservingitsresolutiChamparanyaonuntilfinaljudgment
inthecase.
Everydocumentadmittedinevidencemustbeendorsed
andsignedbytheJudgeinthemannerrequiredbyOrder13,Rule4
andmarkedwithanexhibitnumber.

5.

IMPOUNDINGOFDOCUMENTS::

Somedocumentsrequirestampduty.Unlessproper

stampdutyisaffixed,documentsareinadmissibleinevidence.
Suchdocumentscanbeimpoundedandthedeficitstampduty
alongwith penaltycan berecovered. Sec.33and 34 of the
Bombay Stamp Act provides for impounding of such
document.Afterimpoundingthedocument,thedocumentis
tobesenttotheCollectorofStampsforrecoveringthedeficit
stamp duty and penalty. The penalty @ 2 % p.m. on the
deficitstampdutyistoberecovered. However,thepenalty
shouldnotexceedtwicetheamountofdeficitstampduty.As
per section 33 power to impound the document can be
invokednotonlybythecourt,butbyeverypersoninchargeof
apublicoffice.Theobjectofthis provisionistoprotectthe
revenue.

12

Nonpaymentofproperstampdutyisdifferentthing
thannon registrationof the document. Impounding can be
done only in respect of a document onwhichproper stamp
dutyisnotpaid.Oneshouldnotbeunderimpressionthata
document which compulsorily requires registration but not
registeredcanalsobeimpounded.

Insufficiently stamped document cannot be received in

evidenceforanypurposewhatsoever.Wheneversuchainstrument
istenderedinevidence,theCourthastoimpounditasobligatedby
Sec.33oftheBombayStampActandthenproceedasrequiredby
Sec.34. UnlesstheprocedureundertheStampActisscrupulously
followedbytheCourt,adocumentwhichisnotdulystampedisnot
liabletolookedintoevidenceevenforcollateralpurpose.Incaseof
M/S. Deepak Corporation vs Pushpa Prahlad Nanderjog AIR
1994Bom337itwasobservedbyTheirLordshipsthat,adutyhas
been cast on the authority or the court to impound a document
under Section33 if any such document which is inadequately
stampedisproducedbeforeittobeacteduponandthatdutydoes
notcome toanendonwithdrawalofthedocumentbytheparty
liabletopayadditionaldutyandpenalty.

6.

ADDITIONALEVIDENCE

(a)BeforethetrialcourtOrder18Rule17givespowertothe

13

trialcourttorecallanywitnessatanystagewhohasbeenexamined
and may put such question to him as the court may think fit. In
MadhubaivAmthalal,AIR1947Bom,156,ithasbeenheldthat
the power can be exercised by court suo motu as well as on
applicationbyeitherparty.

Thisprovisionappliesonlywithrespect

to a witness who is already examined. There is no provision for

adducing other additional evidence before the trial court. Earlier,
Order 18 Rule 17A had provided for production of evidence not
previously known or which could not be produced despite due
diligence.However,thisprovisionisomittedbytheamendmentof
1999.Thusnow,thepositionisthatafterclosingoftheevidencebya
party,thetrialcourtcannotallowanyevidencetobegiven.InSalem
BarAssociation v/sUnion of India2003(3)Bom.C.R.327 it is
heldbytheHon'bleApexCourtthatduetodeletionofOrder18rule
17 A the the position of status quo ante is restored as the said
provisionwasintroducedbytheamendingactof1976andoriginally
itwasnotthereinthecodeofcivilprocedure.Itisfurtherobserved
bytheHon'bleApexCourtthatrule17Ahasbeendeletedwitha
view that unnecessary applications are not filed primarily with a
viewtoprolongthetrial.
(b)

BeforetheAppellateCourt
As a general rule the appellate Court shall decide an

appealontheevidenceledbythepartiesbeforethetrialCourtand

14

shouldnotadmitadditionalevidenceforthepurposeofdisposalof
anappeal.Section107(1)(d)ofC.P.C.,howeverisanexceptionto
thegeneralruleandempowersanappellateCourttotakeadditional
evidence or require such evidence to be taken subject to the
conditionslaiddowninRule27ofOrder41.Inthecasereportedin
A.I.R.1997 Supreme Court, 3243 between Jaipur Development
Authorities Vs. Kailaswatidevi, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed
that,
Whenapartyisunabletoproducetheevidenceinthe
trial Court under the circumstances mentioned in the Code, he
shouldbeallowedtoproducethesameinanappellateCourt.This
power is discretionary and should be exercised on sound judicial
principlesandintheinterestofparties.
However before leading additional evidence the party
requirestoprovethefollowinggroundsmentionedinOrder41Rule
27oftheCivilprocedureCode
(a)

The Court from whose decree the appeal is

preferredhasrefusedtoadmitevidencewhichoughttohavebeen
admitted,or
(b)

Thepartyseekingtoproduceadditionalevidence,establishes

that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence

15

wasnotwithinhisknowledgeorcouldnot,aftertheexerciseofdue
diligence,beproducedbyhimatthetimewhenthedecreeappealed
againstwaspassed,or
(c)

theappellateCourtrequiresanydocumenttobeproducedor

anywitnesstobeexaminedtoenableittopronouncejudgment,or
foranyothersubstantialcause,
AsperRule2,thecourthastorecordthereasonforallowing
the additional evidence. The appellate Court may itself require
additionalevidenceforeitherofthetwopurpose;i.e.toenableitto
pronouncejudgmentorforanyothersubstantialcause.Howevera
mattercannotberemandedforallowingapartytoadduceadditional
evidencewhensuchevidencewasavailableandyetnotproducedin
the lower Court. The true test therefore,is whether the appellate
Courtisabletopronouncethejudgmentonthematerialbeforeit
withouttakingintoconsiderationtheadditionalevidencesoughtto
be adduced. Similarly, the appellate Court may admit additional
evidenceforanysubstantialcause.Theexpressionanysubstantial
causementionedintheruleshouldbeliberallyconstruedsoasto
advancesubstantialjusticebetweentheparties.Ameredifficultyin
comingtoadecisionisnotsufficientforadmissionofevidenceunder
Rule27.Soalso,theprovisionsofRule27arenotintendedtoallow
alitigantwhohasbeenunsuccessfulinthelowerCourttopatchup
theweakpartsofhiscaseandtofillinthegaps.

16

In MallyalamPlantationLtd.Vs.StateofKeralaand
another, A.I.R. 2011 SCW 264, the application for additional
evidencehastobeconsideredalongwithappeal.
In StateofRajasthanVs.T.N.Sahani&oths,reportedin
2001(10)S.C.C.,619itisobservedthat

"ItmaybepointedoutthatthisCourt,aslongbackasin

1963 in K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy [AIR 1963 SC

1526], pointedoutthescopeofunamendedprovisionofOrder41,
Rule27(c)thatthoughtheremightwellbecaseswhereeventhough
theCourtfoundthatitwasabletopronouncethejudgmentonthe
stateoftherecordasitwas,andso,itcouldnotrequireadditional
evidencetoenableittopronouncethejudgment,itstillconsidered
that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure
shouldbefilledupsothatitcouldpronounceitsjudgmentinamore
satisfactorymanner.ThisisentirelyfortheCourttoconsider,atthe
time of hearing of the appeal on merits, whether the documents
which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need to be
lookedintotopronounceitsjudgmentinamoresatisfactorymanner.
If that be so, it is always open to the Court to look into the
documents and for that purpose, amendedprovision of Order 41,
Rule27(b),C.P.C.canbeinvoked.SotheapplicationunderOrder
41,Rule27shouldhavebeendecidedalongwiththeappeal. But

17

takingaviewontheapplicationbeforehearingoftheappeal,inour
view,wouldbeinappropriate..''
MODEOFTAKINGADDITIONALEVIDENCE.
Rule28and29laydownthemodeoftakingadditional
evidencewhenappellateCourtadmitsadditionalevidenceinappeal.
TheappellateCourtmaytaketheevidenceitselfordirectthelower
Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred or any other
subordinateCourttotakeit.WheretheappellateCourtdirectsthe
lowerCourttorecordevidence,itshouldretaintheappealonthefile
anddisposeitofonreceiptoftheadditionalevidence.

(P.K.Sharma)
DistrictJudge1,Latur.

(Sou.S.S.Sapatnekar)
SpecialJudge,Latur.

(S.M.Yallatti)
CivilJudge,S.D.,Latur.

(L.S.Chavan)
2ndJt.CivilJudge,S.D.
Latur.

(Mrs.VaishaliPushkarPatil)
2ndJt.CivilJudge,J.D.
&J.M.F.C.,Latur.