Facts: The plaintiffs filed a civil suit for the cancellation of three sale deeds and a rectification deed, alleging that defendant no. 1 executed them in favor of defendant no. 2 using a cancelled power of attorney without consideration. Defendant no. 1 (the petitioner) contested this, asserting in his written statement that Rs. 5 Lakhs was paid as consideration and receipts were issued. During the trial, at the stage of cross-examination of plaintiff no. 1, defendant no. 1 filed an application (Exhibit 117) to produce these payment receipts to confront the witness. The plaintiffs opposed this, arguing that the documents were not produced earlier as required under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC and that a previous amendment application to include specific receipt details had been rejected.
Procedural Posture: The Trial Court (2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khed) rejected the defendant's application to produce the documents. Aggrieved by this rejection, the defendant filed the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
Issue: Whether a party to a suit can be permitted to produce documents for the first time during the cross-examination of the opposite party for the purpose of confrontation, even if those documents were not filed with the pleadings or were not explicitly detailed in the written statement.
Holding: Yes, the petition was allowed. The High Court quashed the trial court's order and permitted the defendant to produce the documents to confront the plaintiff during cross-examination.
Reasoning: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mohammed Abdul Wahid vs. Nilofer, which clarified that the exceptions in Order VII Rule 14(4), Order VIII Rule 1A(4), and Order XIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC permit the production of documents for cross-examining a "witness" of the other party. The Court held that "witness" includes the parties to the suit when they testify. It reasoned that as long as the document is not "completely divorced from or foreign to the pleadings", it can be produced to confront a witness or refresh their memory under Section 145 of the Evidence Act (now Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam). Since the defendant had already pleaded the factum of payment in his written statement, the receipts were not foreign to the case. Procedural rules are meant to prevent surprise, but they also provide specific carve-outs for effective cross-examination to reach the truth.